Talk:Godzilla (2014 film)

Monsters

I think that we should rewrite, cleanup, edit and expand Monsters including Godzilla, Winged MUTO and Eight-Legged MUTO to the article please? There is going to be a lot more work that needs to be done. 89.187.100.71 (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

OPPOSED. Any information about the monsters can be found in the Creature design section. Armegon (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Box Office Inconsistencies

I've noticed some inconsistencies with the film's box office gross. Box Office Mojo reports that the film grossed $524M, however, the numbers reports that the film grossed $529M. How do we proceed from here? Which sources do we use? I recommend we use this for the BO gross... "$524–529 million," with both sources cited. There seem's to be nothing in Template:Infobox film that goes against my option. Thoughts? Armegon (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Remove hatnote

I believe the hatnote use on this page is unnecessary. There is no other 2014 film named Godzilla, so this title is completely not ambiguous. So per WP:NAMB, should not need a hatnote. BOVINEBOY2008 23:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I concur that the hatnote should be removed per WP:NAMB. This particular topic has no special reason to be exempt from removal. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

OPPOSED. You cite WP:NAMB but fail to allude to any specific part that illustrates your argument. However, WP:NAMB does state "A hatnote may still be appropriate when even a more specific name is still ambiguous." Again, there's 4 films in the franchise, 2 TV series, 3 video games, and several works of literature that share the same title, "Godzilla." One may be looking for the 1998 Godzilla but may fail to remember the release date, and may stumble upon the 2014 or 1954 article by mistake. The hatnote serves to better navigate readers to these specific articles of the same name that they may or may not be looking for. Armegon (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The main guideline states

It is usually preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous.

. The name of this article is not ambiguous, there is no other property that would logically be referred to as "Godzilla (2014 film)". And there is no more specific name that would be ambiguous. This argument would make sense if there were more than one article titled Godzilla released in or around 2014 film, or if punctuation was the only differing content.

And I do not follow how the fact that there are other films in the franchise leads you to the conclusion that "Godzilla (2014 film)" is ambiguous. How would one stumble upon an article titled Godzilla (2014 film) and think it may refer to the 1954 film? If a reader doesn't remember the year of the film, they would most certainly not type in "Godzilla (2014 film)", they would more likely go to "Godzilla", and the disambiguation page would help after that. And this isn't a vote, it's a discussion, no need to bold your opinion :) BOVINEBOY2008 23:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"Preferred" but not recommended nor enforced. The hatnote is a convenient tool for readers to better navigate to articles with similar titles. Yes, one could google their desired search or save their time with a shortcut like the hatnote that is already provided at the top of the page. WP:HN even illustrates this, it states, "Their purpose is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for." After all, Godzilla is a niche franchise. A non-fan could simply search "Godzilla" and come up with hundreds of results. The hatnote circumvents this. It is an essential tool to aid readers navigate better to their destinations and because of that, I find the hatnote is necessary enough to warrant its current position. Armegon (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

But a ready who would search for Godzilla in Wikipedia (not google) would be taken to the character page, which appropriate has a hatnote because the title is ambiguous. And they would start searching there. Please, could you tell me how a person could end up at this article and not expect it to be about the 2014 film? BOVINEBOY2008 23:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt people's immediate web browser is Wiki. There's a reason why people say "google it," not "Wiki it." The title of the 2014 film is "Godzilla," not "Godzilla 2014 film." Like I said, the average joe could easily google "Godzilla" or even "Godzilla movie", come up with hundreds of results, and stumble upon the wrong article with the same name. We're talking about 66 years of Godzilla history, there's loads of content that share the same title as others. It's pretty clear it's a common mistake to make, otherwise what's the point of the hatnote or the WP:HN article even existing if every single person on the planet can automatically disambiguate all Wiki articles on their own? Half of readers can't, hence why the hatnote was invented and why it's an essential navigating tool. Armegon (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

When you Google Godzilla, this article doesn't even come up on the first five pages of results. Try again. BOVINEBOY2008 00:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Funny. Godzilla 1998 comes up in the first five results for me but I want Godzilla 2014. Try again. Armegon (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so why would this page need a hatnote? You couldn't even get here from the Google search. I'm guessing that if a reader were looking for the film and didn't see it, they would go to the dab page, not here. They never got here. Does that make sense? BOVINEBOY2008 00:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, both 1998 and 2014 (amongst others) share the same title, "Godzilla". I googled Godzilla but I got 1998, I wanted 2014. Do you see now how one could make that error if they don't know the release date and are going by the title alone? The hatnote is necessary to navigate to right article the reader is looking for. Again, WP:HN states, "Hatnotes provide links at the very top of an article or a section to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for." Armegon (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

But then why would the hat note be here? Your hypothetical reader never even saw that this page existed from the Google search! How did they get here? You still haven't answered that question. BOVINEBOY2008 01:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe they got there through the hatnotes? They googled "Godzilla," came up with either the 1954 or the 1998 article instead, but low and behold, those two articles also have hatnotes (they actually do) and they guided him to the correct article. Do you now see the importance of hatnotes for articles with the same title? Armegon (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

But neither the 1954 or the 1998 film come up when you Google. There is still no logical way a reader would end up here without having going through a disambiguation page, or being brought here via direct link. There is no good reason for THIS page to have a hatnote, in my view. Clearly you disagree. Other voices would be appreciated. BOVINEBOY2008 10:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. For you, 2014 didn't pop up in your google search but for me, 1998 and Shin popped up in the first page of results. Everyone's google search results will differ from yours & mine. I feel the hatnote is essential, especially for articles with similar or the same titles/names. Per my previous arguments, those are good enough reasons, in my view. Armegon (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This argument seems like it would apply to any set of films disambiguated by year, and there is no overarching precedent for it. Maybe it could apply to films released one year apart, but at some point, we have to let go of the reader's hand. Or you can push for a WikiProject-wide or Wikipedia-wide acceptance of hatnotes everywhere. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Remove hatnote You have a hatnote that tells you the article is about the 2014 film and a link that takes you to a disambiguation page. And then the first two sentences of the article tell you this is a 2014 film and provides a link to the franchise page. The hatnote is redundant in this case. If you are at the wrong article the first line of the lead provides a method of identification and navigation. Betty Logan (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, it seems 3 are opposed and one in support. Unlike some sore losers, I know when I've lost an argument. I'll take down the hatnote personally. Armegon (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't the hatnotes in the other two articles be removed as well? El Millo (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Gojira/ Godzilla's Name

During the events of the film Serizawa refers to Godzilla as "Gojira" and introduces him using this name, however later in the film the US millitary refers to him using the code name "Godzilla." In the early versions of the script the name Godzilla was meant to be taken as the millitary mispronouncing his name (similar to how the 1998 film starts out calling the monster "Gojira" and the "Godzilla" name was created when the media mispronounced the name.) In Godzilla: King of the Monsters, Godzilla and his species were refered to as "Titanus Gojira", inticating that the name "Gojira" was more correct, despite the rest of the characters refering to him as "Godzilla".

I was wondering if both names should be referenced in the plot description or if it should refer to him as just "Godzilla?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zroy96 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Just Godzilla. Only Serizawa refers to him as "Gojira" and Titanus Gojira was not introduced until GKOTM. Armegon (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zroy96 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Japan

This old Country discussion from 2014 is outdated. The arguments were based on critics' reviews, not official databases. We now have two official databases, British Film Institute (BFI) and European Audiovisual Observatory (LUMIERE), listing Japan as a production country. Maestro2016 (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

As per Template:Infobox film, "For reasons explained below preference is given to reliable databases like BFI, AFI, or trade publications such as Screen International and Variety." BFI is literally the first source listed. Reliable databases like BFI and LUMIERE list Japan as a production country. I don't see any valid reason to exclude it from the infobox. Maestro2016 (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Before we begin, I noticed that you restored your edits for this article [1] and Godzilla: King of the Monsters [2][3]. To avoid reverts and edit warring, it's best if you read WP:QUO. It's also best not to rely on WP:LAWYERING since some policies/guidelines contradict one another and is better to just talk it out and form a consensus. Now, the problem with citing databases is that sometimes they provide contradicting information. In this case, Japan is referenced as one of the countries that produced the film but none of the databases that you provided name a Japanese company at all. Legendary Pictures is the sole production company cited. Same with Godzilla: King of the Monsters. LUMIERE claims it's also a Mexican co-production but not a single source that you provided named a Mexican production company. In the case of these two films, I feel it's best to stick to production company cited in the billing block, just like the cast and crew. At least we'd avoid contradicting information this way. Armegon (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

As Template:Infobox film explains: "According to the European Lumiere project, the value of this parameter is seldom found in the primary source (the film) and often involves original research". And in turn it quotes the following from the European database LUMIERE:

defining the nationality of a film is a complex task. There are no widely accepted international or even European definitions of the criteria to be used to determine the country of origin of a film. This is both a legal and a statistical problem. It is enlightening to compare the lists provided by the different national sources that we use: countries involved in a joint production are not always indicated (even when the main coproducer is from another country). Different national records – and the statistics on which they are based – can show the same film as having a whole range of nationalities.

This is why it states: "For reasons explained below preference is given to reliable databases like BFI, AFI, or trade publications such as Screen International and Variety. Some call it the country(s) of production, while other simply call it the country(s) or nationality." Ultimately, it's a form of WP:Original research to try determine the production countries based on what production companies are listed in primary source materials. That's your own definition of a "production country", not a widely agreed upon definition of a "production country". And citing the primary source material is a fairly weak argument in itself, since the primary source posters themselves state the films were produced "in association with Toho"... You cannot just simply assume Toho had no involvement in the production process, or that BFI and LUMIERE have no reasonable grounds to list Japan as a production country. We should simply stick to whatever production countries are listed in reliable databases (BFI, AFI, LUMIERE) and/or trade publications (Screen, Variety), instead of trying to engage in our own original research to try determine the "production country" based on our own personal definition of the term. Maestro2016 (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

In regards to Godzilla 2014: You state that "the arguments were based on critics' reviews, not official databases". While it is true that consensus can indeed change, per WP:CCC, but it states that it can change "especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments" and changing an established consensus can be "disruptive". All the points you brought regarding Template:Infobox film and BFI were referenced and considered in that 2014 discussion. So, you're bringing nothing new that warrants exhuming this old issue. The reviews and databases remain the same as they were in 2014. So why should consensus be challenged using the same old arguments from 2014?

Because it didn't follow the rules? That's WP:LAWYERING, and I did state earlier that we should avoid that path. It 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." Which seems to be the goal of this discussion.

In regards to Godzilla: King of the Monsters: I restored the production companies/countries. Except Mexico. Not a single secondary source, or the billing block, identifies a Mexican production company attached to the film. Nor does any other secondary source, like Screen Daily or BFI, identify Mexico as one of the countries that produced the film. Armegon (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

In the 2014 discussion (not sure I'd call it a "consensus" if it was just three editors), they didn't have access to more sources. Back then, it was basically the BFI database vs. a Screen review. Now we know that the LUMIERE database also lists Japan, so that's two of the major film databases which agree that Japan was a production country. That's a new source that was not previously taken into account back in 2014. If BFI and LUMIERE are both listing Japan as a production country, then clearly Toho had a role in the film's production.

It's also not "Wikilawyering" (whatever you think that means) to point out that it's a form of WP:Original research to reject what reliable film database sources state in favour of your own personal research, trying to determine the production countries based on what production companies are credited in primary source materials. That's now how a "production country" is universally defined, as mentioned on Template:Infobox film (which I've quoted above). It's simply best to stick to what film databases and/or trade publications state regarding the matter, rather than trying to engage in your own personal research.

With regards to King of the Monsters, fair enough. Mexico is only listed on LUMIERE and not BFI. Whereas Japan is listed on both BFI and LUMIERE (for both Godzilla 2014 and King of the Monsters).

Maestro2016 (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sock: You were part of that original discussion and recently undid Maestro2016's edit on the subject. This new discussion would benefit from your two cents. Armegon (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Godzilla discussion for further feedback. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The sourcing seems good, and I think it is inappropriate to revert an edit that sourced the content in favor of unsourced content. While "Country" can often be without an inline citation, this is because the content is usually unchallenged. If it's being challenged here, then an actual citation should be provided for just "United States". The policy of WP:BURDEN trumps the essay of WP:QUO. Furthermore, we can use a note to clarify the different countries' involvement, which will always be to different degrees and rarely ever equally distributed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)