Armegon

Godzilla B.O.

• I realized the Godzilla vs. Destoroyah's box office numbers in the chart and in the article are very different. I changed it to the latter.
• City on the Edge of Battle had an unsourced box office number, so I just converted 150 million yen into "May 2018" USD
• FW's box office mojo numbers and JP sourced numbers have a difference of at least 3 million. AT least you can acknowledge that...

Overall, some of the stuff in the franchise box office numbers conflict with the articles or just... basic common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DougheGojiraMan (talk • contribs) 19:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

You're right. There are some discrepancies but there's a lack of common sense on your end too. The article for Godzilla vs. Destoroyah says it grossed $34.5 million USD but you added $34.8 million USD, and the article's box office section says $42 million USD. This is why I oppose using online conversion calculators because everyone gets a different result. For GMK, I don't understand why you changed it from $20,000,000 to $21,284,951. Where did $21.2M come from? The source provided for the GMK article and Godzilla franchise box office are consistent: ¥2,710,000,000 / $20,000,000. I wouldn't oppose to you fixing Destoroyah and City on the Edge of Battle. But GMK was just fine based on the source provided. I'll take a look at GFW myself when I have the time. Armegon (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Armegon, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Armegon! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Spawn (1997 film)

Please note:
page discussion about the Budget of Spawn 1997 (more of a monologue than a discussion, if I'm honest).

I don't think the $40 million figure from Box Office Mojo is credible, and I would remove it but Template:Infobox film specifically warns not to cherry pick budget figures. It may seem excessive to include multiple sources but I wanted to make the $45 million budget clearly the most likely figure, because some editors place an excessive amount of trust in Box office mojo and would delete better sources like Variety, and tell me that Box Office Mojo is somehow "official" (because the don't know any better and have seen almost every other Wikipedia film article do it that way, but yeah that has really happened).

I also made sure the Production section properly explained that the budget was initially only $20 million and why it went up and up (VFX mostly). There's no good reason for Box Office Mojo to have a different figure than the industry trade paper Variety and SFGate and the LA Times, but BOM is often sloppy, and the longer you look at Box Office Mojo the more mistakes you'll find.

The final cost of the film may even have been $47 million, according to Todd McFarlane but I wasn't able to get a copy of the original Spawn comics letter pages to prove that for sure.

Runtimes:
Please note that wikisource included a comment noting that the Theatrical runtime was 96m 12s.
The BBFC website can be confusing, at the top of the page they list an estimated runtime, but you must check the FEATURE section further down the page, where more runtime are listed. In the case of Spawn the theatrical release runtime is 96 minutes but the video releases were slightly shorter, and the figure at the top of the page split the difference. (For some films there can many different theatrical runtimes, for 2D, 3D, IMAX, and more such as 4DX, which is why Wikipedia frequently fails at getting runtimes correct, something that at first seems like it would be so simple).

Thanks for reading. -- 109.76.147.170 (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Rowspanning

Hi there! I undid your rowspanning out of concerns that rowspanning can cause issues with accessibility readers. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial/Internal_guidelines#Avoiding_rowspan/colspan )

It's a pretty minor change, especially to the tables in question, though admittedly technology is improving and these problems are now less common than they once were. What do you think? Mockingbus (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@User talk:Mockingbus If they're less common, it shouldn't be an issue, right? This recent thread seems to confirm that rowspans do not affect any major screen readers. With that in mind, I thought it would be fine to add rowspans. Armegon (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough! I hadn't seen that; I've been working off conversations with an accessibility expert at work (though those were a few years ago; good to hear things have caught up). It's late here so I'll try to respond to your comments over in Talk:Toshiro Mifune tomorrow; I agree in principle with your cleanup, just not with (quite a few of) the details. My edits are a bit of a deliberate overcorrection to provide a good editing point for the future. Let's find a way to preserve and present information without too much clutter and fancruft. Mockingbus (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes! I totally agree! And no rush. Take your time to reply back. Another thing I want to add regarding rowspans, WP:FILMOGRAPHY states that using rowspans in the Year column is acceptable. Which was my only intention. Armegon (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio

If you spot and remove copyvio, as you did at It's a Summer Vacation Everyday, please remember to request its removal from the version history. There's a javascript tool you can load into your common.js which will help you with this, see User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Hello, I'm Andrzejbanas. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Land of Doom, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Rfc

The latter seems to be a longer process but it is one to consider since we have a few other secondary sources that contradict what is claimed in Variety and Screendaily. Deadline states in their article

Legendary East is handling China, where we understand the movie does not have co-pro status so the return is about 25%. Toho has Japan.

This quote discusses distribution of the film through Legendary East's deal with the China Film Group Corporation. Where if co-production status is reached the studio will receive 43% of Chinese revenue, thus this criteria would qualify any such film as a Sino-foreign co-production. But we see this status is not reached and is therefor treated in an economic sense as a foreign film when it comes to China, with it only earning 25% of the revenue.

Overall I am leaning towards the former due to its simplicity, but I believe context should be given about these secondary sources. But if that's too biased then I'd prefer the first one. What do you make of it?--Rebel14 (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

added topic about godzilla pronouns

Seems like not too serious a topic, but I don't want to edit war about it. I have opened a topic about it on Talk:Godzilla (franchise). Maybe there is a way to notify several Godzilla topic editors to achieve consensus? See you there. Alaney2k (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Godzilla Singular Point Key Visual.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Godzilla Singular Point Key Visual.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Ramayana (film)

The Page Ramayana (film) contains refrences to websites that are the only provide information of the film please do not delete the refrences links without a good reason
Wiki wolfea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki wolfea (talk • contribs) 20:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Wolfea has a message for you respectfully in his honer

This is Wiki Wolfea talking about this page if you understade what i am saying thats a start i am consered for my own saften on wikipedia currently becase of this page and am stresed about it i have current problems with by strees on the internt mently. and request a stay for at lest TWO YEARS yes i am Wiki Wolfname and Ginrei but not who the fuck the other one is i hope you fully understand what i am saying to you from Wiki wolfea.

A kaiju for you!

friendly comuncation.

Wiki wolfea (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Wolfea

Please give me at lest 48 hours to fix this with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki wolfea (talk • contribs) 04:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

Hi, please note that articles that have been to WP:AFD are ineligible for WP:PROD, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

G vs KK

I re added it with your changes but I said studio. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

If you're not happy with the wording, feel free to change it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Godzilla vs. Kong

Hi sorry is just want more better style but no more make this edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.215.120.17 (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mechagodzilla 1974.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mechagodzilla 1974.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Shin Ultraman

It ain't much, but its my best effort: Shin Ultraman. Do the honors in adding more info if you wish. Zero stylinx (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Zero stylinx: OH SWEET, DUDE!! Thanks a bunch! I was planning to start the article myself but I was at work when the trailer dropped. Don't worry, this article will be in great hands! Armegon (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Godzilla Resurgence Theatrical Poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Godzilla Resurgence Theatrical Poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Godzilla vs. Kong Credits Poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Godzilla vs. Kong Credits Poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Source in text

I totally understand your reticence, and I get that it sometimes seems normal to mention the sources in the text of the article. I'd like to discuss my point of view briefly.

If someone was interviewed by The New York Times, or Rolling Stone, or Time magazine, then the source itself might be notable and I'd mention the source explicitly in the text (probably, not always).
Sometimes mentioning the sources adds context, so with reviews I'd mention Variety film critic Todd McCarthy, or Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times, etc.

What I wouldn't do (and what got me started on this in the first places) is say Kim Kardashian tweeted, or Aston Kutcher said via Twitter, because it is almost never notable that a post was made via social media. Where it was said doesn't usually matter, what was said is the important part. Only after social media posts get picked up by enough other secondary sources does it then become anything notable enough to include in an encyclopedia. So although I was deleting the mention of Instagram it is really the unnecessary and uninformative mentions of Twitter that bother me, but for very similar reasons. I really do think it is simpler to omit the publication and leave the extra details to the reference.

I'm not sure if Wikipedia has a guideline that encapsulates the point I'm trying to make (if it does I wasn't able to find it quickly) but I hope this helps better explain my point of view, in a way that a short edit summary cannot. But then again, there are always exceptions.

Thanks. -- 109.76.198.88 (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@109.76.198.88: I don't know if you noticed but I did revert my own edit. It wasn't as beneficial as I thought it was. Armegon (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I noticed after I'd written this note asking you to reconsider. Thanks. -- 109.76.203.24 (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Godzilla

Please understand that "negative to mixed" is wrong. You only need to use "Negative" or "Mixed, choose one or stay silent. It seems that TropicAces already made you understand, dude. ErnestoCabral2018 (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:American Godzilla '14.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:American Godzilla '14.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Godzilla MonsterVerse 2021.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Godzilla MonsterVerse 2021.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Godzilla vs. Kong (mixed)

This reasoning comes across as lawyery. WP:VG/MIXED specifically says ""Mixed to positive" and "mixed-to-negative" imprecisely describe reception that skews slightly more positive or negative. "Mixed" means "scattered across the board", not "medium", so reviews cannot be both "mixed" and "positive". For precision, "mixed" alone is sufficient. Supplement with specific reviews to describe various positive and negative aspects."

This is a principle and consensus obviously applies to all critical reviews, and wouldn't magically change just because the mediums are different or because it isn't reiterated in MOS:FILM. Consensus is community-wide; localised communities and wiki-projects do not have a monopoly on topic areas, nor can they have double standards between WikiProjects. If you want to include a reference to "mixed to negative" reviews, then you might want to start a larger discussion to change it.

You also do not have two reliable sources backing it up. You have one source from The Observer that says that. The other one, from Forbes, says "mixed-negative," which can easily be read as "mixed or negative" reviews. Darkknight2149 11:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It's been reverted. Armegon (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I want to bring something to your attention

If you look at the box office chart for Godzilla films here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godzilla_(franchise)#Box_office_performance

It states that Godzilla Final Wars made $9,167,302 in "other territories" according to this source here https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0399102/?ref_=bo_se_r_7 But $9,133,840 of that was from Japan not from "other territories". The Japanese gross is already there ¥1,260,000,000 (which at the time adjusts to $9.1M US dollars). So its fudging the "worldwide gross" number because the Japan gross is listed twice.24.50.161.190 (talk)

Yeah, you're right. This is why I recently cleaned up the box office totals. Whoever edited that section messed up and convoluted certain info. Thanks for the heads up. I'll personally fix it. Armegon (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Skull Island Company Credits

You don't believe me?! Skull Island would be co-produced by Warner Bros. Animation! Don't remove the Warner Bros. co-production in my way!

Production Companies

• Legendary Television
• Netflix
• Powerhouse Animation Studios
• Tractor Pants
• Warner Bros. Animation (co-production)
• Warner Bros. International Television (co-production)
• Warner Bros. Television (co-production) (as Warner Bros. Television Studios)

Distributors

• Netflix
• Warner Bros. Television (co-distributor) (as Warner Bros. Television Studios)

Other Companies

• Warner Bros. Post Production Services (post-production facilities)
• Warner Bros. Sound (post-production facilities)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13929756/companycredits?ref_=tt_dt_co

Ramayana (1942)

Hello, there fellow kaiju fan, I noticed that a "sockpuppet" for a user named Wiki wolf name (I sore the post that one of his sockpuppets posted on your talk page) created the previous version of this article but I take a major interest in the film because it being a kaiju movie made before Godzilla (special effects by Eiji Tsubaraya) I got this info from here, soo is it worth taking the risk and creating the article? - Eiga-Kevin2 9:02, 12/7/21

Vandalism? Funny

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:52pd. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Do not add original research or unsourced material. See WP:OR and WP:RS.16:58, 20 September 2021 (PTC)

Stop nonsense “vandalism” for someone's edit, OK?

In China, there are two types of import films, Split Finance Films and Buyout Films. The Split Finance Films is only works for Hollywood "Big Five" except Legendary Pictures (begin with Warcraft in 2016), Polybona Films and Tencent Pictures joint-venue. The rest films are all count as Buyout Films. For Split Finance Films, only 25% of box office will count into production companies, but for Buyour Films, no money will count to production companies' profit.

Based on Official files from China Movie Society, Goeilla vs. Kong is Buyout film, so do you still think the box office from China will count into Warner Bros. profit?

Your GA nomination of Godzilla (1954 film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Godzilla (1954 film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Godzilla (1954 film)

The article Godzilla (1954 film) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Godzilla (1954 film) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Godzilla (1954 film)

The article Godzilla (1954 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Godzilla (1954 film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Godzilla, King of the Monsters!

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Godzilla, King of the Monsters! you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Godzilla, King of the Monsters!

The article Godzilla, King of the Monsters! you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Godzilla, King of the Monsters! for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Godzilla, King of the Monsters!

The article Godzilla, King of the Monsters! you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Godzilla, King of the Monsters! for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ultraman Powered Title Card.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ultraman Powered Title Card.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Ishirō Honda

In the midst of the Covid 19 pandemic, it is nearly impossible to locate books, magazines, or newspaper articles about Ishiro Honda in New Zealand. May I ask for your assistance to improve the article and nominate it as a good article (GA)? - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 2:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Eiga-Kevin2: sure thing! Though I think the article is in good enough shape already to submit for a nomination. Armegon (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I would also appreciate help on many of my edited articles, as I'm a relatively new user on Wikipedia. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 6:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Eiga-Kevin2: of course! For other articles, specifically kaiju/tokusatsu articles, I recommend using the Godzilla (1954 film) and Godzilla, King of the Monsters! articles as reference points, since they both passed GA nomination. For the Honda article, I say we both look at the Akira Kurosawa article as a reference point. We don't have to imitate it but emulate it enough with the info/sources we could find. Armegon (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Just finished adding a longer introduction for the article using Akira Kurosawa and Alfred Hitchcock as reference points. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 3:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Also should I rename all the film articles which are under Japanese titles? Because they're used by their official English name in Ishiro Honda: A Life in Film, from Godzilla to Kurosawa? - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 5:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

No. I tried doing the exact same thing a while back but it seems that we should use the Japanese titles if there's not enough sources supporting the English translated titles. As far as I can tell, only the Honda book refers to the Japanese films by those English titles, with some exceptions. Armegon (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

It is almost done, all that is left is the Style, Main Themes, and Legacy sections, and a more detailed description of the man's career, which I would appreciate your help with. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 9:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely! I'll help however I can! Armegon (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Ultraman English logo.png

Hi! I'm reviewing files, and I noticed that this file is tagged as a non-free file. I think, that per the provisions of threshold of originality and the fact that this was published in the United States, that the file is not protected by copyright. The threshold of originality is high in the United States, and also in Japan, where it could of possibly been published as well. I'll switch it over to {{PD-text-logo}}, and if it's okay with you, transfer it to Commons. Thanks in advance, Sennecaster (Chat) 13:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sennecaster: I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Armegon (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Godzilla Raids Again

The article Godzilla Raids Again you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Godzilla Raids Again for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SL93 -- SL93 (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I closed the GA as passed. The bot didn't add a GA icon or notify you for some reason. SL93 (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: Excellent! Thank you for taking time to review the article. Truly, I am grateful. Thank you! Armegon (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mothra vs. Godzilla

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mothra vs. Godzilla you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ffranc -- Ffranc (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mothra vs. Godzilla

The article Mothra vs. Godzilla you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mothra vs. Godzilla for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ffranc -- Ffranc (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Kong: Skull Island

I have a complaint to make. 67.140.78.0 (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Any issues u have, u gotta take it to the article talk page. Armegon (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Toho source

Ryfle fails to mention that Katsumi Tezuka played Godzilla in Mothra vs. Godzilla, or some of the cast members, while the official Toho website does, so why do you keep changing the reference back to Japan's Favorite Mon-star? - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 7:17 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Eiga-Kevin2: did you even bother to read my edit summary? Either way, I managed to find a compromise. Check the current article. Armegon (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is a user intentionally added a factual error and defends it and refuses to communicate. Thank you. I mentioned you as the editor who started the thread seemed to be talking about your actions even though they named some other editor. Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Frankenstein Conquers the World troll

This user who keeps reverting Frankenstein Conquers the World is also trying alter your edit warring report. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks man. I'll get on it. Armegon (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

After that unexpected April Fools joke the troll made, I feel like listening to the soundtrack to Disney's The Black Hole a couple of times to calm my nerves. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I kinda expected this. I just didn't think it was gonna happen on the Frankenstein article lol Armegon (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Look, you two, this isn't acceptable. Removing a complaint concerning yourself from WP:AN3, FilmandTVFan28, over and over again, to the point that you flood the revision history? All you had to do was place their complaint at the bottom of the report. They were not "altering" the report. As well, both of you, especially you, Armegon, revert the user on their talk page in contravention of WP:OWNTALK? Why? You have no right to retain your comments there. None whatsoever. Just because someone might be WP:NOTHERE does not mean policy can be violated in response. El_C 07:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Won't happen again. My intention was to leave a summary of the events for the block-request reviewer. It wasn't intended to conjure another edit war. Armegon (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

If that user wanted to report us, he could've done it at the bottom of the page, not above. I already fully understood. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Hello. I just want to make clear i'm not against your desire to include special effects crews within wiki articles. I want good articles to a) follow the MOS:FILM. b) Not have extreneous information that can't be clarified as having context. I find when I try to talk with you about these discussions you do not address my points and bring up older conversations that few users were involved with, misinterpret current conversation, and assume my stance without asking me. I want to work with you to make the articles better, but you to assume good faith. I hope this clears any air or animosity. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s all good man. I understand passions get high during talk page discussions and sometimes it gets difficult to remain level headed at times. So, I apologize if I went a little too gung-ho with my arguments. It wasn’t my intention to make you look bad or anything of that nature. Ghidorah is the next article I wish to nominate for GA. So I look forward to fine-tuning it with you. Armegon (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

For the record, you work on the Japanese science fiction articles has been generally great! I'm very glad I'm not the only person trying to clean up these older film articles. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! My goal is clean up every Godzilla article and get them to pass GA nominations, like what some editors have done with the MCU film articles. But it’ll take some time, of course. But I’m glad there are other editors like you that share my passion and goals for these films and their articles. We’ll definitely form something great out of these! Armegon (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

GA for King Kong vs. Godzilla

Hi Armegon, I've been working on the King Kong vs. Godzilla article for some time now, trying to improve it as much as I can for a GA nomination, do you think it's ready to be nominated? - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 1:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. I think the article has been ready for a GA nomination! Armegon (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I nominated it! - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 5:07, 20 April 2022

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shin Godzilla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shin Kamen Rider.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Draft:Untitled Godzilla vs. Kong sequel

Hello. I noticed that you created a new article after news that filming has commenced on the GvK sequel. Is there a possibility that we could merge this draft with the article you created as it does contain a bit of edit history. Additionally I'm unsure as to why the draft wasn't just moved from draft to mainspace. Thanks. KaitoNkmra23 (talk!) 21:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Huh. I didn’t know someone started a draft beforehand. Yeah, I don’t mind merging it. I just hope the information and sources I added are also transferred. Armegon (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster

The article Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ultraman (1966 TV series)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ultraman (1966 TV series) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ultraman (1966 TV series)

The article Ultraman (1966 TV series) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Ultraman (1966 TV series) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Is this what is meant by "both Titans "?

If they are not MUTOs, why are you so unwilling to rewriting to say what is meant by "both Titans "? tahc ^chat 22:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. I never said "both Titans". I said that the MUTO article is about the two MUTO characters from Gareth Edwards' GODZILLA. Armegon (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

So you reverted this edit of mine without looking at it or reading its edit summary?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Godzilla_vs._Kong&diff=next&oldid=1116249530

tahc ^chat 23:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you meant by "is this what is meant by 'both Titans'?" but your edit was crystal clear and warranted reversion. I already explained why in my edit summary...multiple times. On top of that, the term "MUTO" is never used in GODZILLA VS. KONG. So I don't understand why there's a need to link "Titan" with an article that has nothing to do with the Titans. Armegon (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The plot summary says (among other things) that "As Mechagodzilla overpowers both Titans..." and you don't know who these two monsters are-- but you are clear they are not the 2 monsters from the 2014 film-- and you want the plot summary to stay confusing, rather than look into what the two monsters might monsters be? tahc ^chat 01:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

From what I can tell, "both Titans" refers to Godzilla and Kong in the plot section. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't understand how one would be confused by "As Mechagodzilla overpowers both Titans", unless one hasn't seen the movie. Armegon (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Eiga-Kevin2 for being a sensible editor who doesn't speak in some sort of code.

Yes Armegon-- I am reading the article exactly because I have not seen the movie. Why would I need to read the plot summary unless I had not seen the movie.

Now that you have discovered the obvious, Armegon, do you want to tell us why you worked so hard to keep the plot summary unclear? tahc ^chat 04:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Look. If you're gonna be rude and sardonic, then this discussion is over. Next time, take the issue to the article's talk page, not an editor's talk page. The only one confused about the plot summary and edit summaries is you. No one else has found the wording "unclear" since March 2021 except you. Unless you can build a consensus that favors "both Godzilla and Kong" over "both Titans", then the previous wording remains per WP:QUO. How's that for speaking in code. Armegon (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black Adam (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Desert News.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Shared universes and their notability

Hello! Do you remember article about Toei Tokusatsu Universe which was nominated to deletion by you some months ago? The article cited sources but not ones that could confirm it's a shared universe. Now, when searching some information, I found out Wikipedia has an article about Tomorrowverse, a shared universe consisting of various animated movies. The article was a draft at first, but it seems it was accepted and is here many months already. But the interesting thing is the only one citation from the article is a source which calls it the shared universe. All others are, just like in Toei Tokusatsu Universe, sources about other things: release dates, reception etc. May I ask, why the article about Tomorrowverse is here despite the lack of the sources and should it be nominated for deletion? Or is one source enough? Дейноніх (talk) 06:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not too sure. One source names it as such but then again, DC Extended Universe was also given that title unofficially because one source began calling it that and everyone is still rolling with that title. The problem with Toei Tokusatsu Universe was that no sources were calling it that, much less Toei; and no sources confirmed their connection as a shared universe. It's probably best to take the issue to Talk:Tomorrowverse or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. I'd recommend the latter because you may get non-bias responses from non-fans. Armegon (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Godzilla '54 design.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Godzilla '54 design.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MonsterVerse logo updated.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MonsterVerse logo updated.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to King Kong (franchise), please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The Show preview button is right next to the Publish changes button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. 53 consecutive edits to the page, 41 within ~3 hours. This makes reviewing your edits harder. Indagate (talk) 09:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

King Kong picture

I was looking at the file you uploaded here [[1]], How come Kong's son is in the collage? That's not King Kong. That's "Little Kong" (aka Kiko). King Kong himself only appears in that film via a poster on the wall in Carl Denham's office. This here [[2]] and [[3]]Wikieditor9117 (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I had reservations about adding Kiko myself but two things convinced me. 1: the previous collage had Kiko too and no one disputed it and 2: the son of Kong would inherit his father's name just like any other child would and within the framework of the movie, King Kong is dead. So, the title of King and name Kong passes on to the son. Had they made sequels after Son of Kong, they would have likely named him King Kong too. I also understand that "Kiko" is not an official name for the character and was just an affectionate passing name they used while filming. So if he is called Little Kong, he is technically a variant of King Kong. Armegon (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Godzilla 2023 logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Godzilla 2023 logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Film trailers

If your new thread at WT:FILM is about what I think it's about based on my watchlist activity, you may want to courtesy-tag the editor making those changes or drop them a Talk page message? I'm happy to do so, but I wanted to give you the opportunity to do so first as I feel it would be a good-faith gesture. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It was more to sate my personal curiosity than to expand that Trailer Issue on the Godzilla page. Armegon (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't even follow any Godzilla articles, heh. If you mentioned there that you'd be asking at WT:FILM, you can consider my concerns mooted! :) DonIago (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Link works fine for me

I experience no problem with the link in the Hellboy article. Maybe you should try another browser. Hipporoo (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Titanosaurus1975.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Titanosaurus1975.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Corrections to Godzilla Raids Again

I am the author of the book Godzilla and Godzilla Raids Again, the one that is coming out on October 3, 2023. You removed my updates and corrections to the article on Godzilla Raids Again, in which I talk about Kayama's enormous contribution to the film. Could I ask why? I am trying to rectify the long-standing problem of English-language scholarship consistently leaving the screenwriter Shigeru Kayama out of all discussions of Godzilla (1954) and Godzilla Raids Again, when in reality, he came up with most of the plot of the film. (In Japan, this is all a well-known fact.) Honnomushi (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Originally, I reverted your edits because they were not attributed to an existing source or multiple reliable sources. All you did was cite the book itself but it will not be publicly released until October 3 (at least that's what my Kindle edition pre-order tells me), so adding info before it is public knowledge is in violation of WP:BALL. How is one to verify the contents if the source is unavailable? We can’t simply take your word for it, that’s not how Wiki works. And it seems your submission for Draft:Godzilla (Shigeru Kayama novels) was declined for similar reasons.

But you just admitted to me, and on the edit summaries on Godzilla and Godzilla Raids Again, that you are in fact the author of the book! If true, then this would be a severe violation of WP:COI and your account could potentially be indefinitely barred from editing — not by me, but by an admin that may one day stumble upon those edit summaries. If you truly are the author, just wait until the book is released and I'll add the information myself since WP:COI discourages the author from "editing affected articles directly". Armegon (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

It is not a violation of WP:COI to correct incorrect or incomplete information, and this article contains numerous misstatements. Isn't it better to have an expert who has researched this area extensively correct the errors and misstatements? That was all that I was trying to do. Honnomushi (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

If you would prefer, I would be happy to cite the authoritative sources in Japanese, which are already widely available. Would that be acceptable? Honnomushi (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand but you also must understand that Wiki has rules and guidelines to prevent potential conflicts of interests, like yours. And again, YOU can’t edit affected articles that you’re involved with, per WP:COI.

I prefer it if you simply wait until the book is officially released. I will restore the information in a new fashion (to avoid plagiarism) so as to avoid further conflicts of interests.

I could add the Japanese sources myself but since an English source does exist, I’d rather wait for the latter. Japanese sources could create further misinterpretation by readers who don’t speak/read Japanese and have to use unreliable translating apps to decode the Japanese texts; further misinformation is what you’re trying to avoid, is it not? Armegon (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. I'm just trying to set the record straight and get the information out there about an important part of the story of the creation of Godzilla that this article currently doesn't tell.

Could I ask a favor? Would you be willing at least to help me correct one of the biggest, most glaring errors in the article for Godzilla (1954)? The article currently describes the 1954 book 怪獣ゴジラ by Kayama as a "novelization." In fact, thre 1954 book is a transcript of the radio play broadcast 1954 on Nippon Hōsō (the forerunner of NHK) as publicity to help generate interest in the film. (By the way, Wikizilla also mistakenly describes this 1954 book as a novelization, so that source is incorrect too.)

It was later in mid-1955 that Kayama published his novelizations of Godzilla and Godzilla Raids Again, and when he did, the words 怪獣 were not in the title at all. In other words, it was the 1955 books that were the novelization, not the 1954 one. I've been asked about this error multiple times by die-hard fans of Godzilla, including right before one kaiju-fan podcast interview recently, so I'd like to try to set the record straight. That's why I came here to Wikipedia.

I hope that when the book Godzilla and Godzilla Raids Again comes out next month from University of Minnesota Press, you will permit some additions about Kayama's gigantic role in the creation of the film. Since one of Japan's biggest sci-fi writers came up with the main ideas of the screenplay, I am sure there are lots of people would find that information interesting! Even though Kayama's name is right there in the credits of Godzilla, listed as the author of the 原作, somehow, that part of the story is consistently left out in English-language scholarship.

Again, thanks for your consideration, and I appreciate the fact that you are trying to guard the Godzilla article against vandalism, but I hope that you'll help set the record straight. Thanks in advance. Honnomushi (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Just changed it from novelization to novel since "小説" is used in the source. And of course! I look forward to reading the book. I'm always on the look out for any new information regarding the Showa Godzilla films. Armegon (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your willingness to listen. I do appreciate it that you have chosen to cautiously guard the Godzilla webpages, and again, I appreciate your attention to detail. Your advice is helpful since I don't have much experience writing for Wikipedia.

In the interest of correctness and a shared love of kaiju, I've uploaded a PDF of 「怪獣ゴジラ」 (Godzilla, the Kaiju) as it appears in 『香山滋全集』 (The Complete Works of Kayama Shigeru) so that you can read the contents.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cMXpFVWXyAJHpIxTXDWjqiA8_HvxFc_H/view?usp=drive_link

It's super fun reading. Even if you just take a peek at it, you will immediately see that 「怪獣ゴジラ」 is the transcript of a radio drama, not a prose novel, despite what certain not-so-reliable internet sources might say. There is a detailed history of this text on p. 529. As I mentioned previously, the novelization was a separate book published in 1955 (the year after the first 1954 film), and that had a different title. This is a significant detail and one I hope you will help me correct on the Godzilla (1954) Wikipedia article.

One more small detail... The correct reading for the name of the publisher (岩谷書店) is Iwaya Shoten, not Iwatani Shoten. This is an easy mistake to make because the character 谷 has two readings, たに（tani） and や（ya）, but in this case, ya is the correct reading. We know this because the founder of the publisher was Mitsuru Iwaya (岩谷満), who happened to the son of a famous politician and businessman in the Meiji Period. You can read about his father at the following Wikipedia page, and confirm the reading of this name. Also, there are some details about the publisher son, Mitsuru Iwaya, in the section labelled 親戚。

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B2%A9%E8%B0%B7%E6%9D%BE%E5%B9%B3

I find these historical details interesting and important since Iwaya Shoten was the same publisher that published the super famous magazine 『宝石』, where Kayama made his debut and published many of his early works. Although we cannot say with certainty (and I don't make suggestion to put this in the article), the fact that Kayama had published so often with them in the late 1940s and early 1950s was most likely the reason that the 1954 radio drama was published by them.

Anyway, thanks for bearing with me as I share all of this detail. I hope you will help me make the corrections, and I hope that you will be willing to help make some adjustments again after the October books comes out. I appreciate your help and attention. Honnomushi (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I made the correct regarding Iwaya Shoten. All very interesting stuff. I hope some of those tidbits make their way to the Forward chapter of the book because I find those footnotes interesting as well. Adds more context of the era that these films and books were produced under. Armegon (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Would you please also correct the mistaken description of 怪獣ゴジラ as a novel? It is a radio drama, not a novel, as the PDF I shared shows. Thanks in advance. Honnomushi (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

BTW, the book does include a lot of information about the writing for the film, Kayama's role, and the wider cultural context, including a detailed explanation in the glossary about what certain buildings that Godzilla stomps upon represented to moviegoers/readers in 1954. (Kayama's choice of buildings for Godzilla were symbolic, as Yoshikuni Igarashi as argued.) I hope you find this all as interesting as I do! Honnomushi (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused. Maybe I'm mistranslating this but does 小説 mean novel? Or is there an additional meaning to it? The source describes 怪獣ゴジラ as a "小説" and google translate decodes it as "novel" for me. Armegon (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Minus One edits

Hi Armegon, just wanted to discuss your recent edits to the Godzilla Minus One article. As far as I'm aware the red carpet premiere and the premiere screening are two different events that occured in different locations. Btw, the sources you listed do also not specify where the film was screened nor if it was in Shinjuku (they also don't directly say if it happened on the 18th). Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The new Japanese source I provided [4] says that "The premiere event... was held on October 18th at Godzilla Road in Kabukicho, Shinjuku, Tokyo, " -- I had to edit out some parts because they were overlong. Though I am reading it via Google translate but I am confident that passage is accurate. Also the previous Japanese source [5] says the early praise came from celebrities who seen "previews" but doesn't specify when or where such previews occurred. Its possible the October 18th premiere was the preview? That article was published a day after the premiere after all. Either way, my revisions don't specifically connect the early responses to the premiere. Armegon (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The Eiga.com article is mearly describing the red carpet event, hence why it mentons everyone who appeared at the event in the same sentence. The Moviewalker.jp article mentions that the screening was held in the same paragraph about the day before the article was published (October 18th) and it refers to the screening as an "early complete preview of the work". Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure? The translation I'm getting is... "In addition, there have been many rave reviews from celebrities who have seen previews of the completed film". Never specifies the date and location of the previews. It only says "The world premiere red carpet event was held yesterday..." I used both Google Translate and Translator by uLanguage and they both reflect the same thing. Armegon (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I've finally found a source that confirms the location and date at least. Though it is Twitter, the user that posted it is somewhat a celebrity, so I think it should be fine to cite at the mo. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Armegon: why don't we just cite the Tweet and Eiga.com page and write something like "At the same time as the red carpet premiere for Godzilla Minus One, the premiere screening occured at the Shinjuku Toho Building in Shinjuku, Tokyo." for now then? Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

We could, but I think it's best to take this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. I'm currently writing the post. It should ping you once it's published. The issue we're having is misinterpretation; you're interpreting the red carpet premiere and the celebrity preview screening as separate events done at separate times -- while I'm interpreting it, based on the translations & that Tweet, that they're both the same event held at the same theater at the same time. That Twitter post you shared showed a ticket reflecting 6:30, an evening screening around roughly the same time that the red carpet, leading to the same theater, was held. Let's just see how the other editors respond and recommend how we proceed. Armegon (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

hey man i saw your edits on the wiki page for hellboy (2004) and i wanna say thats freaking cool of you, the idea of labeling film studio on a wikipeida of a film as "presented by" is a genius idea and could totally work for any disney films heres a kitten for you my homie.

Joel clements is D E A D (talk) 06:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Minus One Japanese sources

Hello Armegon, I have been looking over edits and reversions to Minus One and I am not entirely certain Screen Rant is a reliable replacement for some of the Japanese sources, as Screen Rant has occasional questionable reliability. As far as some of the structure goes, iit might be best to split its Japanese reception with its international one to juxtapose the two. Perhaps the industry response can go in a potential legacy section if it comes down to it but I just want to see your thoughts and reasoning behind some of the edits you have done. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:RSP, "There is consensus that Screen Rant is a marginally reliable source. It is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons." With that said, Screen Rant does cite and link their sources, including Japanese sources. Armegon (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

yeah, that I figure. sadly, the marginal quality in regards to the budget of the film would be considered controversial. Japanese sources are good so long as they are reliable news outlets and are translated correctly. If they have english sources that are equally reliable that is a consideration to add. with these foreign films it is always best to go for the native country and have the other language sources be secondary. Paleface Jack (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Too much

Your last revert is going too far. I admit my poor English as I'm a Japanese, however removing the whole contents with descent sources is beyond acceptable. Would you at least admit to keep it hidden, not removing the whole contents? I will correct my English and other flaws step by step and eventually release.ノコギリ (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

If you don't reply, I have to revert your last revert as I don't know which part of my edit is unacceptable by your standard. I will wait your reply for 30 minutes.ノコギリ (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, you must familiarize yourself with the rules and guidelines of the English Wikipedia. I don't know how things are done on the Japanese Wiki but we have rules in place to prevent disruptive behavior. Using an ultimatum to force a response is disruptive – people have personal lives, they're not on Wiki every single minute or second – and if you continue with such behavior, your account may be in trouble. You must give people time to respond. Familiarize yourself with these rules and guidelines: WP:5P, WP:PA, WP:QUO, WP:RS, WP:RV, WP:DE, and WP:EW. Armegon (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not going too far. If it's a few edits then it would be okay – but so many of your edits violate the guidelines of the English Wikipedia such as WP:FAN, MOS:INUNIVERSE, MOS:PUFFERY, WP:SYN, WP:PSTS, and WP:UGC. Believe me, I am not doing this in a disrespectful fashion and you are not in trouble – but again, many of your edits have brought a decline in the article's quality. There's way too much errors to fix that a reversion to the old version is the only solution. And leaving poor English and saying you'll fix it later is not acceptable either – you must be prepared upon editing because, again, this is the English Wikipedia. Armegon (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I apologize for asking time to respond. ノコギリ (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your decision, and I apologize for my poor writing and English, lack of awareness of rules, and my behavior. It's not easy to improve my English myself, so from now on I will seek alternative measures such as asking someone to correct my English before posting on English Wikipedia. Again, thank you very much.ノコギリ (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi

First, I'm sorry to break my promise that I will find someone to correct my English before posting on Wikipedia. I tried to find one to do it for free, but now I think I have to pay for a proper translator. I just added contents that I didn't do so last time. I hope there isn't much problem with it, but please feel free to point out problems so I will fix or delete them. Best Regards. ノコギリ (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Don’t worry about it. I will eventually correct some of the English grammar, or someone else might. But it should be okay for now. Armegon (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Anyway, I will try to improve my English. Best Regards. ノコギリ (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Godzilla 1954-2014 incarnations.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Godzilla 1954-2014 incarnations.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)