Jump to content

Talk:Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, do you pass by my front?

[edit]

What the heck does that mean? 71.218.215.61 (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing?

[edit]

Trying to convince them to fight against Ghidorah, the Mothra larva first sprays Godzilla in the face with "threads" and Rodan seems to be laughing, then when Rodan gets the treatment next, it looks like Godzilla sits down on a rock and laughs83.37.123.24 (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

US Poster

[edit]

I've removed the US poster. It's a cool addition to the article, but to use copywritten images, we need state why we are showing it. If we can answer the question "what is this image showing that can't be explained in prose?" in the article, than we can probably bring it back. Otherwise, I'd suggest leaving it out for now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put that poster up there and the reason was to show the English version of the poster to reflect the fact that this is the English wikipedia and this was the physical representation of the films release in the English language Western market. Furthermore it will help readers understand its US distribution with a clear visual that can't really be covered in text. As well, the picture I uploaded featured the monster actors from the film which gives people an understanding of how the special effects of the film were done something that is far more explanatory than what can explained in text, showing the actors that brought the monsters to life. Even though this is non-free media, if its tagged according and has rationale it can be used, and that was the point of the upload in the first placeGiantdevilfish (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's cool to have these images, but they fail the copyright reasons. Unless there is something that can not be truly understood without showing it, we can't claim fair use. For example, showing simply "what they look like" is not strong enough. Check out the article I re-vamped up on Matango where I use a screenshot. It shows off the scars on the actors face which resembles victims of the bombing of Hiroshima. In this case, it's proper to show off what they look like as it helps user understand and compare and see why they film was nearly banned. I'd suggest reading WP:NFCI @Giantdevilfish:. It basically states that since your images provide no "critical commentary" that is backed up, we can't really use them. Which is lame, because I actually quite like the images you chose. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of that link (which #4 states you can use promotional materials). But awhile back on another page I uploaded some images of production for a film that were deleted by some individual claiming the same lack of critical commentary. His deletion was refuted and it went to a noticeboard discussion and the consensus was that they could be used because they showed elements of the production which would help people understand the article better then simply words and they were tagged accordingly with a lack of a non-free alternative. You see this is really interpretation. Someone could say "Well it doesn't add any critical commentary to an article" while others could say "Well I disagree. I think it helps people understand the section more with those visuals". The wikipedia allows copyrighted images to be used which is why they have the fair use rationale templates or else it would simply not be allowed. The reason I upload these pics is so people could get a better understanding of the source material. For instance that photo of the three suit actors. I was showing that pic to some people at my work and they were like "Wow. So that's how those monsters look without the suits. That's interesting". I guess I could use a photo of the puppeteers working the Ghidroah necks which would illustrate that last portion of the production article better, but opted to use that photo for the simple fact it showed all three suit actors together in a publicity shot. Anyway if these uploads bother you so much wouldn't it be better to get a third person's opinion to see what others have to say rather then deleting them and stating why you think they should be deleted?Giantdevilfish (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll propose them for deletion only because I don't want to break any rules with an otherwise better article. Again, I do like the images and agree with you that they are interesting, but as you are familiar with wiki rules, arguing to save articles/images/etc. because they are "interesting" doesn't usually fly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting wasn't my argument. My argument was a better understanding of the material using a visual reference.Giantdevilfish (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it was perhaps an illustration of how they fit into the suit rather than just what they look like, it would be a visual reference. Otherwise, it's just a non-free image of the actor that doesn't say anything other than showing what they look like. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's to show an aspect of the films production. The picture shows the three suit actors that played the monsters on film holding up the models that were used during filming for mostly far away shots and flying sequences (King Ghidorah and Rodan). The models are mentioned in the last sentence of the last paragraph of the production section of the article, so the picture illustrates this. Would you be happier if I uploaded a pic of the King Ghidorah suit being manipulated by wire works? Also alittle off topic here but I'm just curious about something. That shot you posted before of Akiko Wakabayashi. That is listed as public domain in Italy. How can that be used on the American wikipedia. Just because something is public domain in Italy doesn't mean its public domain in other countries, so how can that be used on a country's wikipedia page if the picture isn't necessarily public domain in that particular country?Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better for the image you are describing as it would provide context of something that can't be explained in prose that I'm sure you could find sources for, so it has supported context. As for the Wakabayashi picture, it may have been in appropriate, you'd have to ask the author. The general idea is that the image was published in Italy, and as copyright exists different in Italy, that image is public domain now. I'm not quite an expert on it, but I'm sure the user uploading it may be able to explain it a bit better. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive crew listing

[edit]

Per my previous edit, I'm removed content that is actively against the rules. (my bad on MOS:FILM, but more specifically) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states " does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere.". In short, these extra cast members lack context. Why is it important to know these credits? I've re-posted this to the talk page. if you want to discuss further. Without that information, details on crew members who don't even have their own Wikipedia articles is not useful for most readers. I'm happy to discuss if I'm missing some bigger picture here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per my initial removal of the section, MOS:FILM does actually mention we should avoid these kind of details. In WP:FILMPRODUCTION, which states that we attempt "to maintain a production standpoint, referring to public announcements only when these were particularly noteworthy or revealing about the production process." What information is being gleamed here from these extra details? I find this different than a cast section which is reflected from character's on screen presence which would be far more relevant to general audiences. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm removed content that is actively against the rules." This is just plain WP:LAWYERING, and you're overreaching and misinterpreting that part of WP:FILMPRODUCTION you referenced. It says nothing at all about forbidding listing crews. I feel it's absolutely important to list the crew because these are, first and foremost, effects-driven films. I agree that we can't list every single personnel. So, I narrowed it down to the most essential effects crew and attributed them to a reliable source. These effects roles were just as essential to bringing these films to life as the crews listed in the infobox. Therefore, I believe they are notable to note, or list in this case.
WP:PERSONNEL allows and encourages the bulleted list of names/roles format that you're campaigning against. Albeit for albums, but why not films either? Even the Edge of Tomorrow and Interstellar film articles (where I got the idea from) lists film crew credits in their body and both also passed GA nominations with the crew credits retained. So, it's evident that general Wiki consensus finds such lists of names/roles notable for listing because there is no criteria or discouragement on when/where such credits are allowed or not allowed. The only big rule I see from WP:PERSONNEL is that such credits should be attributed to reliable sources, which I have provided.
Forgive me if I don't respond after this. I was actually preparing to go to bed before all this happened. I'll reply back in roughly 8 hours. Armegon (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the number of crew listed is the issue (12 listed), we can cut it down to 10 or less? But I argue it's not any less excessive than the 14 performers listed in the Cast section. Armegon (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's excessive in the sense that it's listing things already covered by prose and the infobox. If you can list the importance of the other members, that should probably be turned to prose. Otherwise, I don't see how it helps people out, which is my major issue over the "excessive" bits. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are citing WP:PERSONNEL which is an essay, not a rule, and it refers to albums, not films. I'd also suggest following WP:GOODFAITH. We've never listed cast and crew to this extent in any other article, and this is no difference from the rules (not essays) i've stated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crew lists are not common, but it does not mean that they are not appropriate. If anything, they can be a good way to identify additional crew members based on the nature of the film, like dance choreographers for some types of films. I actually think the crew list should cover the infobox credits as well as the other names because per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "...to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below)." For example, the "Starring" field is a subset of the "Cast" section. The infobox's crew fields can be a subset of the fuller "Crew" section in the article body. I don't think crew lists are as necessary if there are no blue links, but we do have some blue links here (and would have more if we included the main crew). And if possible, we should see if any of the non-linked names could actually be red links to encourage article creation. Ultimately, there's nothing explicitly for or against such crew sections in film articles, so arguments can be made on a case-by-case basis. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that a long while back I added crew lists for Godzilla, Godzilla, King of the Monsters!, Godzilla Raids Again, and Mothra vs. Godzilla. All of those articles recently passed good articles nominations without any issues in regards to the crew list. So, clearly each reviewer for each article found value in them.
In regards to Andrzejbanas' last comment, your argument is still WP:LAWYERING. You're referencing rules but there are no rules on Wiki. Only guidelines. Wikipedia:WikiProject Film doesn't mention anything about rules, but guidelines is repeatedly mentioned. MOS:FILM clearly says in the lead "The majority of the guidelines focus on writing articles about individual films", and "Since the page is a set of guidelines, it is subject to change depending on Wikipedia policies or participant consensus". That last part makes it clear that nothing is set in stone like you're claiming it is. And like Erik and I have iterated, there's no guideline discouraging adding film crews specifically to film articles. Armegon (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems Andrzejbanas has brought up the same dispute on the Mothra vs. Godzilla talk page. By this point, it's superfluous to dispute the film crews on the Godzilla articles that have them. We're already discussing it here. So, wouldn't it be best to establish a consensus here for this article and the other Godzilla articles with the crew credits? Armegon (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on establishing a consensus here. Just because they passed as a Good Article, doesn't mean it's accepted. Not everyone is familiar with every Manual of Style on Wikipedia and I've had several of my own Good Articles in the past edited and pruned after passing. I'd be happy for the inclusion if you can stress the importance of it to the general audience. So far, there has been nothing here that suggests why we have to keep it other than you think I'm attacking your edits. I wouldn't misinterpere @Erik: either, as I don't believe he feels it's that useful either " I don't think crew lists are as necessary if there are no blue links, but we do have some blue links here (and would have more if we included the main crew). And if possible, we should see if any of the non-linked names could actually be red links to encourage article creation." The material you cover in blue links in most of these is covered by the prose already. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erik also said “Crew lists are not common, but it does not mean that they are not appropriate. If anything, they can be a good way to identify additional crew members based on the nature of the film”. Like I said before, since it is an effects driven film, I added FX crew that were as essential as the infobox crew based on the nature of the film, as Erik suggested. Erik also said “Ultimately, there's nothing explicitly for or against such crew sections in film articles”. So on what criteria are we basing what should remain or be removed? There are no guidelines that prohibit a crew list or how it’s currently listed. If red/blue links are the issue, I wouldn’t oppose adding some crew from the infobox to balance blue/red links. One additional importance is that the crew list could serve as a broad summary of what’s covered in prose, should readers feel to lazy to read. If it works for the lead, why not this? The lead can’t cover all crew lists after all. Armegon (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify about my statement, I think crew lists may not be necessary in a film where the whole crew has no Wikipedia article. For something like Cane River (film), I would not add a crew list. I do think that the crew list should include the infobox names for completeness, like the cast list has starring and non-starring actors while the infobox has just the starring actors. For example, this is what is done at Panic Room#Production. Like with WP:FILMCAST, it helps to have a "rule of thumb" to list a specific set of crew members, otherwise it may not be clear where to cut off. In the case of Panic Room, in the book chapter specifically about the film, the author listed the crew credits that you see. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because listing the team members suggests nothing other than they existed. If there was chronological information or anything of value, i'd say please do it. Currently, it's a list of names that you haven't stated how it helps anyone and why it should supplement the wiki rules. I do not appreciate you saying that i'm taking them out of context, as you should really assume WP:GOODFAITH that i'm really trying to just help the article. I've even added material to these Godzilla films outside in the past, so please don't interpret this as anything else. That being said, nothing added here has convinced me that Boku Norimoto was a production coordinator helps anyone understand how the special effects were made, done, or any issues they had with it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All due respect, I am doing my best to assume WP:GOODFAITH, but you're making it difficult. It seems like you're ignoring all the arguments Erik and I have presented that illustrate the value behind the crew list, and once again falling back on WP:LAWYERING. I apologize that you interpreted my responses the way you did. It wasn't my intention. But I too don't appreciate that the valid points repeatedly presented by Erik and I are being met with a "not good enough, try again" attitude. We're just going in circles. I even suggested a couple alternatives as a compromise and those too were ignored. I've worked hard on these Godzilla articles as well. They passed GA nominations 100% thanks to me. Hence why I added the crew list because I felt they can bring a additional understanding to these partially obscured films to Western readers that are unfamiliar with the franchise, and the methods used that were different from Western monster films. Once again, it seems there is value to be found in adding a crew list since there is precedent and value established in GA articles like Edge of Tomorrow, Interstellar, and Panic Room. Armegon (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only you have suggested that WP:LAWYERYING is actually a thing that is happening. You say "there is a value", but you haven't asked my questions regarding "why is it important to know these certain crew members have contributed?" Which you can't have said because the information either a) doesn't exist b) isn't found, or c) isn't relevant. You can say "oh there is value" but you haven't told me what it is. If you can explain it, i'll be greatly satisfied, as you haven't, well... it basically feels like WP:TRIVIA, which states "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information". and "Research may be necessary to give each fact some context". If we can add context, i'd be greatly satisfied, and genuinely interested. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because WP:LAWYERING is exactly what's happening here. It clearly states "Using the rules in a manner to achieve a goal other than compliance with the rule (for example, to "win" an editing dispute) is frowned upon by the Wikipedia community", yet you opened your argument with "I'm removed content that is actively against the rules." How is that not WP:LAWYERING? You were going off about this/that rule but failed to cite which rule specifically prohibits crew lists. Again, no such rule or guidelines exists. And I have told you the value, but you keep ignoring it. But I'll repeat it again: it's an effects driven film. So it would benefit readers to add an expansion of the infobox crew (just like the Cast is an expansion) to the body to add further understanding and perspective on the effects crew that worked on an effects driven film. This is not miscellaneous information. This crew were just as essential in bringing the film to life as the director, writer, producer, etc. The context here is to illustrate these crew members and their roles within the spectrum of an effects production that can't be covered in prose because the English sources cited don't go into detail. But that doesn't mean it's not notable to mention with the info that is available. Again, value and a precedent has been established for crew lists with articles like Edge of Tomorrow, Interstellar, and Panic Room, and even the Godzilla articles that passed GA nominations. You seem to be the only one that's ignoring that value and precedent. Armegon (talk) 07:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I can offer my 2 cents here, I do find excessive cast and crew listings pointless, unnecessary, and frankly they bog down the article. Isn't that the whole point of the Internet Movie Database? If someone wants to see the entire cast and crew listing of a movie wouldn't they go over to that site? Every movie and TV show page article on the Wikipedia has an external link to its IMDB counterpart. I think only the main characters and crew members should be listed rather than every single person involved with the production. For instance look at the King Kong vs Godzilla page. Why is every single cast member listed like "General's aide" and "Obayashi's assistant"? These characters are so utterly minor and have very limited screen time that it makes no sense to list them. Ditto for the crew. I think only the major crew members should be listed not people whose jobs are "Sound recording" and "Special Effects lighting". So while I do think we should have a cast and crew section, it should be used for only the notable characters/individuals. Giantdevilfish (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo. Also, the rules I stated are not lawyering, they just state what I've applied more broadly. As @Giantdevilfish: stated, if there is no notablity or context, how does it help anyone? No one has been able to answer it and just attacked me on some essay and tried to apply rules applied to albums and other non-film topics. If there isn't any other statements, i'd remove them from film articles like Edge of Tomorrow too, simple as they are unsourced and seem to offer nothing not already in the prose. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems back in 2018 there already was a consensus on the WikiProject Film talk page in favor of adding crew lists to film articles, you can see it here. @Erik: you were part of that discussion. Am I interpreting this correctly? Armegon (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a consensus, and certainly not a consensus against their inclusion. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Giantdevilfish, the guidelines at WP:FILMCAST #1 already state following rules of thumb for listing cast members. Cast lists generally should not include unnamed roles, for example. But we would still list an actor without an article if they played one of the main characters; we would not remove them just because they lack an article. The argument here is not for including crew members indiscriminately. I agree that nobody cares about identifying crew members like gaffers and best boys. But the film infobox is not the maximum allowed crew credits. The "Starring" field lists some actors' names, while the "Cast" section lists a fuller set. So a crew list can list additional crew names based on some rule of thumb. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As this is a contemporary discussion, I'd suggest adapting a new discussion on WP:FILM to discuss it. I'm not against listing crew in specific situations (genre films for action crews, choreography for films filled with dance, etc.). My bigger issue is that there is no context to these edits so they come off as trivial. I don't see the point of re-listing the director, who is already mentioned in the infobox, lead, production, etc. Without context, it fails WP:TRIVIA and so far, people have not been able to provide context for said material. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's redundant to start a new discussion when a consensus has already been established on WikiProject Film. Context/value has already been repeatedly presented (and repeatedly ignored) on this discussion but additionally context/value can be found in that 2018 discussion. Again, since consensus has already been established in favor of adding crew lists, this dispute seems settled now. @Erik: which version would be preferable? Merging the crew with the Cast section and rework it as "Cast and crew" or simply keep the current version? Armegon (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really feel like i'm being silenced here. If it's not me being biased, it's a conversation I wasn't aware of. New ideas are brought forward with it, there is no reason it can't be discussed again. Again, every time it's brought up, no one has addressed my issue of context. Not a single time. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Erik and I have repeatedly established context/value and you ignored them every single time. The whole point of discussions on talk pages is to establish consensus. So, what's the point of re-discussing it if there's already consensus? We'd just be unnecessarily dragging this pointless dispute further. Armegon (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What context? Nothing new has been added to the section. The context should be in the prose of the article. Nothing has been added, so therfore, there you have nothing. As we can't seem to come to a consensus here (and have had little discussion among the community), i think i might want to take this to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't force you to acknowledge the context/value that Erik and I have established. You can ignore it all you want but you can't ignore consensus. It's right here, and it will be presented at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests when/if it proceeds. If you want to prolong this, then you'll just be WP:NOTGETTINGIT. It states "Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus" and that "Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia." Again, consensus has been established long ago, like many guidelines. There's no point in prolonging this dispute because your preferred version is not being favored. Instead of perpetuating and wasting time with this dispute by fighting to get it removed, it would be more constructive to improve upon it and add the context/value you believe is missing. We could re-examine which roles are more prominent to be mentioned in the crew list. Armegon (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that consensus. It was not added to the MOS:FILM and so it's frivolous "consensus" made four years ago that fails WP:TRIVIA as it lacks context. I'm leaning towards you not getting it, over myself honestly. I've asked for a few things, context (to make it satisfy rules) and none of my questions about "why do we need to know the assistant director?" or why are we re-listing people who are already mentioned in the prose? Who does this help? If there is no answer, I feel like I'm being ignored here for your preferred listing of trivial characters. As for me not trying to improve it on my own, I am trying to improve it but removing crufty material as I have not been able to find any information on why knowing these team members deserves it's own listing. And as you can't provide context I just get discussion saying people thought it was good, but I personally feel it's against other standards. Others have not been able to show that i'm wrong. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik:, you know more about WikiFilmProject than I do, does this consensus need to be added to MOS:FILM to justify adding film crews to any film article, and does Andrzejbanas' disagreement derail that same consensus, despite the timeframe and overwhelming support in favor of crew lists? Armegon (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no real progression on the topic here, I'm going to bring up the discussion again at WP:FILM so we can figure out how it should be handled in 2022. I don't think arbitration is the correct way to go with this, as i don't feel it falls under WP:ARBSCOPE, but as Erick is either occupied or has left the discussion, I'd like some fresh voices to weigh in on the topic. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of thumb

[edit]

To revisit this, the list of crew credits is based on the book Japan's Favorite Mon-Star: The Unauthorized Biography of the Big G. I was curious to look elsewhere to see what crew credits are shown. At AFI, beyond the film infobox credits, the art director, sound effects, and special effects personnel are listed. In The Toho Studios Story, for this film, the crew credits are shown here. This does not mean all these crew names should be listed -- the cast credits section afterward seems to pretty much list all of the cast members. Regardless, we can see that the special effects director and art director and lighting and sound are near the top. This is the kind of "rule of thumb" I mean that we should consider for crew lists. Maybe some overlap or combination of these would work. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support: With this, at least there would be a degree of oversight. We can also use the Criterion Collection website to see who else is repeatedly referenced in the credits to further establish a rule of thumb. Armegon (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reduce or remove: If you want this included, I would limit down to the special effects crew (there is no reason to re-iterate the director and cinematographer,etc.) and place is as a sub-heading section within the special effects section. however, Just because you can find lists of special effects crews online that does not state its notability as it has no context (I can find credits listing online and several filmographies, databases film guides, so so what? Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. " and per WP:NOTCATALOG, "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit." So I'd prefer if there was actual information on what we need to know these members, and those sources listed by @Armegon: don't state them. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems consensus has grown in favor of crew lists at Wiki Film Project [1]. So there's no need to regurgitate old arguments to perpetuate this dispute. And agreed. I will personally reduce the number of effects crew. optical effects is referenced three times. My fault. It can only be referenced once. Armegon (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be rude, but don't talk things that aren't true. One user stated "This is an interesting discussion that I can't totally follow". El Millo says flat out "remove it", Donlago said "I don't know that I have a strong position on this one way or another...to me, just including a 'random' list of crew associated with a film does seem a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE," It really is only you and Erik who seem on board. Your argument against the last one was that WP:PERSONNEL exists, but as I've stated to you at least four times, that applies to WikiProjects:Albums, not as a wider wiki rule. If anything, I've tried to assume WP:GOODFAITH from you, and you are jumping from conversations to new points each. I've even tried to meet with you half way here, and stated several rules that would be against this, and you both you and Erik ignore it. I'm still assuming good faith in Erik, but you are clearly pushing content and honestly, if you can't explain how they follow these said rules I've stated above, I'm leaning towards your attitude towards it being Wikipedia:Ownership of content. You don't own these articles, and I feel like you've done great work, but this addition from what iv'e stated, from the several i've cited, make me really feel like you want them in for your own personal reasons and not to aid anyone reading wikipedia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if you feel that way. Like I responded in my talk page to your post, passions get high in talk page discussions. And I do genuinely apologize if you felt my conduct went to extreme levels. It wasn't my intention. With that said, it seems we have found a compromise. Erik proposed his rule of thumb, then you proposed reduce or remove. I support Erik's proposal and yours (to reduce). I've already reduced the number of crew members per your proposal. Armegon (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Armegon. I might suggest pacing down the crew to the "special effects crew" and maybe make it a sub-section of "Production -> Special effects -> special effects crew. I'd drop the "production manager, director, and assistant director" as if we were including these extra crew members because the film is made with an emphasis on the special effects. i'm not sure if you'd agree but I think it would improve the focus of the "crew" section without re-iterating stuff we already know. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Interesting. You'd rather it be more focus on effects crew? The current version is pretty broad. It lists 4 effects members, and 4 non-effects members to merit it as a general crew list. In fact, it was the reduction of crew members that now makes the current version more broad. Armegon (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just figure that's the main focus of production, so might as well make it at least seem in tune with that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 20:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The poster image has a suitable FUR.

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • ld-dvd-bluray.2-d.jp
    • bloody-disgusting.com
  • There's some repetition in the lead re the recycling of the suits.
  • "The film was followed by Invasion of Astro-Monster, released on December 19, 1965": should specify that Invasion of Astro-Monster is the following film in the Godzilla franchise.
  • "After deeming the session a failure due to Naoko's skepticism, a meteor shower descends on Japan": needs rewording -- as written this says that the meteor shower deemed the session a failure.
  • "with the largest crashing in Mount Kurodake": largest what? Meteor?
  • "determines the Prophetess to be normal": what does this mean?

The article needs copyediting before it can pass GA. Some more examples: "a replacement was need"; "partnered up"; and "rapidly edited explosions". In addition to copyediting for this kind of basic error, it also needs a higher-level copyedit to assemble the material in a readable way. The prose style is almost all short sentences that are non sequiturs; the bar for prose at GA only requires it to be clear, not confusing, and grammatically correct, but this is below that level. The first paragraph of the "Special effects" section is a good example of the problem; if you can get someone else to copyedit it I would point them at that paragraph as an example of what needs fixing. Unfortunately I think this is too far from meeting the criteria for GA to fix while under review, so I am failing it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New GA nomination

[edit]

Eiga-Kevin2, Armegon, to nominate this article for GA again you need to just follow the instructions at WP:GAN/I, and paste {{subst:GAN|subtopic=Film}} at the top of this talk page. A bot will take care of transforming that to the right format for a second review. When you reverted to the old version, it just reactivated the old failed review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 15:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get a review posted in the next few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over this article, I don't believe that the issues of the previous nomination have been addressed. The nominator (who is not the primary author or the nominator of GA1) made only superficial edits to the article before renominating it. Furthermore, there appear to be significant sourcing issues: plagiarism appears in the article where content from sources is lifted almost directly and presented as the work of Wikipedia editors. There are also points where citations don't appear to support everything that precedes them. The items listed below are just examples; further work will be needed after they are fixed. Eiga-Kevin2, I'm going to end this review now, and I suggest you familiarize yourself with the good article instructions and good article criteria before making further nominations. It's important to make sure that you have comprehensively gone through an article before nominating. Most of the time, this means being the primary author. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well-written

Prose:

  • resulting in them losing their abilities with the exception of predictions. – Rewrite this so it reads better and it's clearer what it means.
  • Continental boasted to Variety – "Boasted" is probably too strong of a word. I see that it was lifted directly from the source.
  • In a contemporary review of a double-bill between this film and Harum Scarum... – This is a long run-on sentence. Sentences like this appear throughout the article, where it's hard to tell when one idea ends and the next begins.
Verifiable with no original research

Spot checks:

  • Ryfle & Godziszewski (2017): Checked all nine uses. All are good except two:
    • The film became the fourth highest-grossing film of the 1964–1965 season in Japan – Watch for close paraphrasing.
    • Honda felt "uncomfortable"... – This is cited to p. 215, but much of the info is on 214.
  • Ryfle (1998): Checked all 12 uses.
    • Months after the film's Japanese release, the film was acquired by Walter Reade-Sterling, Inc., with plans to distribute the film in the United States through their subsidiary, Continental Distributing. – Is this supposed to be connected to this citation?
    • The dubbing of the American version was supervised by Joseph Belucci and runs at 85 minutes. – It's not clear which page supports which statement.
    • who spent hours hunched over inside the costume, holding onto a crossbar for support – This entire sentence is ripped almost word-for-word from the source.
    • It took longer to film the Ghidorah scenes because – Another near-exact copy.
    • Still under contract by Toho, Haruo Nakajima was assigned to reprise his role as Godzilla, having already performed the strenuous suitmation performance for the first four Godzilla films. – This entire paragraph includes a bunch of information that is not supported by the source.
Broad in its coverage

Covers plot, cast, production, release, and reception. There is very little coverage of the film's themes or of any significant literary analysis.

Neutral

No apparent neutrality issues.

Stable

No recent disputes in the history or on the talk page.

Illustrated

The film poster is under copyright in the United States and should probably have a non-free use rationale, as Wikipedia's servers are hosted in the United States.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghidorah,_the_Three-Headed_Monster&oldid=1217421091"