Talk:Monsterverse/Archive 1

MonsterVerse
MonsterVerse
Owners	Legendary Entertainment; Warner Bros.
Print publications
Book(s)	Various books
Comics	Various comics
Films and television
Film(s)	Godzilla; Kong: Skull Island; Godzilla: King of the Monsters; Godzilla vs. Kong
Games
Video game(s)	Various video games
Miscellaneous
Director(s)	Gareth Edwards; Jordan Vogt-Roberts; Michael Dougherty; Adam Wingard;
Producer(s)	Thomas Tull; Mary Parent; Jon Jashni; Brian Rogers; Alex Garcia;
Based on	Godzilla; by Toho; King Kong; by Merian C. Cooper and Edgar Wallace;

Requested move 3 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Godzilla-Kong (film series). SST flyer 13:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla-Kong cinematic universe → Godzilla-Kong (film series) – Per WP:NCF, the appropriate disambiguation for articles such as this is (film series). "Cinematic universe" is an uncommon term, and a more descriptive title is needed to inform readers of the topic of the article. There are exceptions when uncommon terms become the common name of the topic, but this is not the case here. TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC) -- Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary and WB refer to it as a cinematic universe, so I think that is the series name. So we should just append (film series) to the existing title. Alaney2k (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actullay they refer to it as a "cinematic franchise", not a "cinematic universe". In any case, we should use a more discriptive title since there is no common name.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we had created the article title in all caps, then it would be ok like Marvel Cinematic Universe. :-) But anyway, I think the term cinematic universe can't be that rare, as there is an article on it. (edited) Alaney2k (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Marvel Cinematic Universe" is both the official and common name of that topic. This is neither.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – the "cinematic universe" term seems to be a common way of describing it. But we do need to change the silly hyphen to an en dash, unless these two critters are gettin' hitched. Dicklyon (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "Cinematic Universe" is a trademarked / wordmarked term like Kleenex or Xerox, which in a reference book or encyclopedia are not used for "tissue" or "photocopies". The producers of the film don't use that term. It is a neologism and shouldn't be used when the very direct (and frankly less highfalutin' and euphemistic) "film series" is standard through Wikipedia. Are we really going to start referring to the James Bond cinematic universe or the Harry Potter cinematic universe? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you all right with "Godzilla-Kong film series" without the brackets? Seems unnecessary to have the brackets for disambiguation. Alaney2k (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't the point that there's a fictional universe, which this article is about, not just a film series? Dicklyon (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just about every film series shares continuity, besides this is about naming conventions not content.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per TriiipleThreat and Tenebrae. Though I think it should be moved to Godzilla-Kong film series, without the parenthesis as Alaney2k asked above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If others prefer Godzilla-Kong film series, without the parenthesis, then I would support a move there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support with parenthesis. Most other articles use "(film series)", not "film series". Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support with parenthesis. -- Pemilligan (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Monsterverse is the official name of the series???

I know this is not the best source but this site has uncovered something solid. In the back of the Kong Skull Island toy boxes, apparently the word "MONSTERVERSE" can be seen clear as day. This article from Collider also references the series as the "MonsterVerse". Could this likely be the name of the cinematic universe? If so, should we change the name of the page or wait until there's further confirmation from Legendary? Thoughts? Armegon (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is obviously the film series' official title. Seeing as the official merchandise has the name on it - why wouldn't we change the page's title?--71.35.238.247 (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait for a more official confirmation. At bare minimum, we should at least find multiple instances of "Monsterverse." This is a single image, and it may not be real. -RM (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's official, MonsterVerse is the official title of the series! Here is the official documentation submitted for trademark registration with Legendary Pictures listed as the party name and status of the trademark being active. Armegon (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Watanabe in King of the Monsters?

Hey all, this is something I've been meaning to bring up. It appears that some sources have already listed Ken Watanabe as part of the cast for King of the Monsters? The first mention of Watanabe being attached to King of The Monsters was on this article where it says that Watanabe is likely to return but after that, secondary sources now list Watanabe as part of the cast, even though there has been no primary source that broke the news that Watanabe has indeed signed on, like this source that broke the news that Millie Bobby Brown was cast or this latest source that broke the news that Charles Dance has signed on and Sally Hawkins will indeed return. I don't doubt that he'll come back but we do need a source that undisputedly 100% confirms that he has indeed signed on for the sequel, otherwise it would fall under WP:BALL. Armegon (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel like the last article linked is as 100% confirmation. I don't know how much more you want. This is all your going to get. This is the confirmation. He was originally listed as "likely to return" but now is listed amongst the cast. That's confirmation. TheMovieGuy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tweeted Mike Dougherty. Maybe we can get a confirmation that way. Give it a day or two? Alaney2k (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point, I do believe that we can say "has been reported, but not confirmed". I don't think that is prohibited, as it is current and there are two refs for that. Alaney2k (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we could go with that but I think we should wait on Dougherty's reply. If Watanabe has indeed been confirmed to return, then Dougherty will have nothing to hide and outright confirm Watanabe's return. I hate to make this bigger than it seems but remember when sources were calling the film "King of Monsters" instead of "King of the Monsters"? It's best to avoid premature information. Armegon (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If its been reported but not actually confirmed, it should be written as such in the article. "Ken Watanabe is reportedly going to return for the sequel" then if it gets confirmed it should be written "Ken Watanabe will return for the sequel".Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Giantdevilfish. If he responds to your tweet Alaney2k, then GREAT! However, if he doesn't, I think we should proceed with what Giantdevilfish is saying. TheMovieGuy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree to that. Armegon (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been confirmed yet. So, I think it should stay as it is now for the time being. --Oderinnn (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read above comments Oderinnn. TheMovieGuy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not KaijuVerse?

How come the shared universe wasn't dubbed the "KaijuVerse"? Given the definition of kaiju involving giant monsters destroying cities and fighting other monsters, it would have made more sense. Now that the Universal film universe has been named the "Dark Universe", I think it could have used the more creative MonsterVerse name instead since their films center around the classic Universal Monsters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.63.159 (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to us to decide what we call this page. This "universe" is called the MonsterVerse, and has been copyrighted as such. -RM (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think he was wondering why the creators of the series didn't call it the KaijuVerse. (Until next time... Anon e Mouse Jr.) Anon e Mouse Jr. (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When will a page be created for "Godzilla: King of Monsters"???

We have an abundance of information. The film is now in production. It has been cast and has a crew... Why has a Wikipedia page not been created for the film yet? Why must anyone looking for the film be redirected to either the "MonsterVerse" page or "Godzilla" page? I say someone should create it. We have plenty of info and it is time for it to be made. TheMovieGuy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the draft page here: Draft:Godzilla: King of Monsters, which will be moved to the mainspace (become a "real" article as opposed to a draft) when the film begins shooting. -RM (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The film is days away from shooting, so might as well make the article go live now. Armegon (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to rush. Alaney2k (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I expect it can go live on Monday. I wonder if Legendary will post something or the director will. Keep our eyes open! Alaney2k (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have it live now? Production was slated to start in June. No date was specified. What's the difference anyway? TheMovieGuy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The normal procedure is to wait until filming begins. That's a wikipedia policy from the Film Project of editors. See WP:FILM and WP:NFILM. This film is clearly going to be made. But many films go into production and don't proceed to filming. Anyway, the casting call for this film specified filming dates from June 19 to September 29.here], so it's only a few days now. Alaney2k (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to use the draft provided by Rmaynardjr or are we just gonna restore the old one? Armegon (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other draft? As far as I'm aware, the link I provided leads to the only draft of the page in existence. Also, we must wait until we have confirmation that filming has begun (past tense). "Filming will begin..." isn't enough. If it hasn't begun yet, it may not happen, and we only move articles to the mainspace if they are filming. -RM (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was an existing article. We probably should compare. Alaney2k (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It can be found at here Alaney2k (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the movie is actually called Godzilla: King of the Monsters. Alaney2k (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article updating of Godzilla: KOTM

I don't what went on yesterday. It seems the article name got changed a couple of times and overwritten. The king of the monsters (2019 film) got updated, but then overwritten. It seems everyone went crazy?

The movie is not called King of Monsters
The Draft article was out of date. Using it instead of the Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film) has no purpose.

And can we hash it out here on this talk page please? We should resolve the content, title and article history etc. I don't think it should bounce around.Alaney2k (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No clue what to add to this. I don't have any idea what is being discussed here. I am glad the page is live now though, that is cool. And yeah, that was a typo on my part as far as the above discussion tab goes. TheMovieGuy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I updated my previous content. Alaney2k (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I think of this, we should histmerge the edits of both articles. The draft has an old editing history and Czar should take a look at this. Now, if I revert Alaney2k's last edit on Godzilla: King of Monsters and redirect the Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film) to it, would probably start a fight. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 07:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of edit history that overlaps between these. I vaguely recall seeing elements from the older draft copied over to the 2019 page without attribution and my impression was that anything that was built atop the 2019 version should be merged (with attribution in edit summary) to the draft. But as I said, the 2019 article should have never started when the draft was edited and waiting. If the older draft's early edits were histmerged, we'd still be missing a lot of content.

czar 07:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find that people who edit on this topic are not that concerned about the rules and procedures. I am not including myself in that group. But, it just made it worse to undo what was done. The draft was out of date and incorrect. The title itself should have been a clue. I don't know of what importance the edit history is, but I am certain that the content right now is correct, complete and current. Alaney2k (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Godzilla vs. Kong already created?

As the topic states, yeah, this is a thing. Check it out... Godzilla vs. Kong. Since the movie is still in early development, there would be a need to delete this article for now? Armegon (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

move it to Draft I guess. Alaney2k (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see there is a draft. So, a merge and change this new article to a redirect. Alaney2k (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think its too early. Its all a moot point because unless Godzilla KOTM bombs big time the movie will still get made. I just think that a film should actually be in production before it gets an article.Giantdevilfish (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the rules anyway, right? Armegon (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another premature article for Godzilla vs. Kong?

Check it...Godzilla vs. Kong (2020 film). This constitutes for deletion because the film has not entered production yet. The same creator of that page also made a premature article for Godzilla: Kessen Kidō Zōshoku Toshi. User:Alaney2k, User:Giantdevilfish, User talk:czar, User:TheMovieGuy, User:TriiipleThreat, any thoughts? Armegon (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Godzilla: Kessen Kidō Zōshoku Toshi article is fine but the other is definitely premature. Should be moved into draft zone until it starts shooting, whenever that is whether it be later this year or next year. TheMovieGuy

I went ahead and did the move to Draft: for Godzilla vs Kong. Thanks for pointing it out. Alaney2k (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaney2k, What are your thoughts for the 2nd anime Godzilla article? Should we draft it as well or leave it as is? Armegon (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Armegon: I feel that the movie is scheduled for release in May and therefore has been filmed/generated. I don't believe that Toho or Paragon are going to put out a PR that they've finished or started. I don't think they did that for the first. And would we know where to look? I would not delete it. But I am ok with putting it into Draft: if that is the consensus. Alaney2k (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll remove the deletion template. Armegon (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Rim crossover

from Pacific Rim Uprising#Future:

DeKnight also talked about the possibility of a crossover with the MonsterVerse,^[1] as co-writer T.S. Nowlin is a member of its writers room.^[2]

^ Chitwood, Adam (October 20, 2017). "Exclusive: 'Pacific Rim Uprising' Director Says Crossover with 'Godzilla' and 'King Kong' Is Possible". Collider. Complex Media. Retrieved October 22, 2017.
^ Kit, Borys (March 10, 2017). "'Godzilla vs. Kong' Film Sets Writers Room (Exclusive)". The Hollywood Reporter. Prometheus Global Media. Retrieved March 10, 2017.

I noticed someone put Pacific Rim in the 'see also' but without context. Does this seem worth mentioning on this article? ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. It's irrelevant trivial information. If DeKnight said that Warner Bros & Universal were seriously considering it, then it could be added but right now, it's just wishful thinking with no serious plans for a crossover. Armegon (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

@Armegon: My apologies for implementing the changes a second time, my intent was not to ignore your opinion. I lost internet connection shortly after publishing the changes and thought that the changes were never published so I reimplemented them again without checking the article history. I do however, think that a compromise can be made, what do you think of something like this? Therefore the Infobox does not get bloated but still serves its purpose by providing a simple overview of the franchise. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Armegon: Re-pinging since pings don't go through on unsigned posts. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have no objections to this option. If anything, it looks better. It helps the reader navigate to the tie-in material more easily. Armegon (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Character List

Why are the two MUTOs not listed under monsters? Is there a reason or we just forgot? EDG 543 (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Character list page

Does anyone else think there should be a separate page for the MonsterVerse characters? ZorahErso (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, no. Not until there is significant coverage that's notable and merits its own article. Armegon (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since some characters from King of the Monsters are crossing over into Godzilla vs. Kong. Plus there's that Kong: Skull Island character that is supposedly returning in Godzilla 2 as well. ZorahErso (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla vs Kong: New Monsters

It may count as a spoiler, however a certain mechanized titan has been confirmed to be in the movie, as leaked images of the toyline reveal its existance and it appears briefly in the trailer. Certain articles cover the film also mention its existence. I was wondering if this certain titan should be mentioned within the Godzilla vs Kong section, or should it be kept secret until the movie's release. Another new monster was revealed in the toyline as bat-like creatures called "Hell Hawks" (who also breifly appear in the trailer.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zroy96 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. It's obvious that Mechagodzilla is in the movie but neither the studio or filmmakers have officially confirmed it. Prematurely mentioning Mechagodzilla would violate WP:BALL. We'd need a verified source to add the Hell Hawks. Armegon (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source that verifies the Hell Hawks: https://screenrant.com/godzilla-vs-kong-new-monster-hell-hawk-images/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zroy96 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I'll personally add it. Armegon (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MechaGodzilla is now 100% confirmed. Official images of the toyline have been released.

Source: https://comicbook.com/anime/news/godzilla-vs-kong-toy-mechagodzilla-merchandise/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zroy96 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This still falls under WP:BALL. It's no secret now that Mechagodzilla is indeed in the movie but neither Legendary nor Warners have officially come forward confirming Mechagodzilla. Comicbook.com is citing leaks for its report, not official confirmation. We'll add Mechagodzilla on March 24. Armegon (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A poster for Kong shows a new crab/spider-like monster, however it's name has yet to be revealed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zroy96 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should we also add the hollow earth arachnids and the giant lizard to the list for Godzilla vs Kong? (They currently don't have official names yet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zroy96 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No since there are no names yet. Armegon (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Official Art of book for the movie, the Hollow Earth arachnids are known as "Rock Critters".

Source (Photo of the art book): https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/godzilla/images/d/d3/Art_of_Godzilla_vs_Kong_Rock_Critter.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20210422073815 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zroy96 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:INFOBOX

MOS:INFOBOX says the Infobox should "Avoid links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function." The Infobox of this article includes multiple "List of" links that just link to sections within the article.

The documentation also says the Infobox "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". I see that older versions of the Infobox (such as from 2020[1]) included a short list of the films that belong to the series. It seems like it would be better to keep that kind of detail in the Infobox.

Many of the franchise and film series articles seem to doing the same things, maybe they are doing it on purpose, and deliberately ignoring the guidelines? The editors actively interested in improving these articles might have their own better way to improve the article themselves than any changes I might make so I leave it up to them to fix the article or discuss if there is a consensus to ignore the guidelines. -- 109.78.199.4 (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with either version, so long as it's clear. Armegon (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been locked since I made my earlier comment and so now I cannot make any changes at all. But if I was to follow the direction of MOS:INFOBOX directly I would have to delete all those "List of" entries from the Infobox entirely, but I had hoped there was an alternative. "List of film" is only 4 items, so restoring them to Infobox seems like it wouldn't be excessive. "List of television" links to only one television show which has not even been released yet, so there isn't really anything to link to yet. I'm not sure any of the tie-in comics or video games are particularly notable.

Large block of wikimarkup for the Infobox changes I would suggest, click on [show] button to the right to unhide -->

<!-- relevant Infobox markup follows -->
{{Infobox media franchise
| title           = MonsterVerse
| image           = File:MonsterVerse logo updated.jpg
| caption         = Official logo featured on merchandise
| owner           = [[Legendary Entertainment]] <br />[[Warner Bros. Pictures]]
| origin          = ''[[Godzilla (2014 film)|Godzilla]]'' (2014)
| years           = 2014–present
| books           = 
| comics          = 
| films           = 
* {{nowrap|''[[Godzilla (2014 film)|Godzilla]]''}}
* {{nowrap|''[[Kong: Skull Island]]''}}
* {{nowrap|''[[Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film)|Godzilla: King of the Monsters]]''}}
* {{nowrap|''[[Godzilla vs. Kong]]''}}
| tv_series       =
| video_games     =
| soundtracks     = 
| otherlabel1     = Based on
| otherdata1      = {{Plainlist|
* {{based on|[[Godzilla]]||[[Toho]]}}
* {{Based on|[[King Kong]]||[[Merian C. Cooper]]|[[Edgar Wallace]]}}
| otherlabel2    = Character(s)
| otherdata2     = 
}}
}}
<!-- end of relevant Infobox markup follows -->

The collapsed box above hides a block of wikimarkup showing the Infobox changes that I would suggest, it restores the short list of films to the infobox but removes the links that are just pointing to the article body. Editors might also consider including a comment such as  to warn editors not to repeat the same mistake. -- 109.78.207.148 (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article continues to misunderstand or ignore MOS:INFOBOX "Avoid links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function."

I have started by restoring the films to the Infobox. The Infobox links that only go to sections of this article should probably also be removed. -- 109.79.169.92 (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

This is getting ridiculous. User talk:2804:14C:598B:8696:F569:F65C:D3A5:1C00, why do you feel the need to restore unsourced content, (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). The source does not confirm that Warner Bros TV is producing the show. So what gives?? Armegon (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've encountered that editor. The idea that Enola Holmes was made without the involvement of Warner seems to utterly confuse him. He doesn't seem to understand how companies work, or that Warner Bros might have different levels of involvement and investment in some projects. The possibility that we simply don't have enough sources to say anything is also an issue, but he didn't even discuss his edits and was blocked. -- 109.79.169.92 (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His recent sock IPs have been blocked for 3 months. The user also doesn't seem to understand how reliable sources work. Thinks citing IMDB is enough. Armegon (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

Why on Earth is MonsterVerse italicized? It's a shared universe and media franchise akin to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Wizarding World, The Conjuring Universe, View Askewniverse, etc., all of which are not italicized. It would only be italicized if the franchise name is equivalent to the title of its first installment, such as Star Wars or Fast & Furious. Additionally, are there any reliable sources that italicize the word "MonsterVerse"? I have to say I haven't seen any. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it's been undone. Armegon (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, should I go ahead and do the same for all the articles on {{MonsterVerse}}? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! That would be great! Armegon (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short films

I wanted to ask if it is worth mentioning the short films Monarch Files that were released on Godzilla & Kong: Skull Island home media release or is it not relevant? I personally think it is relevant but I wanted to ask before I'd do anything. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say they're short films. They're just special features for the BD/DVD. Armegon (talk) 09:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

they actually are short films. Exactly in universe video files. Have a great day cheers mate :) Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we can find a reliable/verified source that outright identifies them as "short films" and background to the production, then they'd probably be notable to add to the article. But right now, they're WP:FAN material since sources refer to them as special features and not short films, 2014, GKOTM, and GVK. Armegon (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, actually every short film that's released on home media with a big movie is called a special feature. Sometimes they're adding the short film part. But it's very rarely. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also I don't know of GKOTM I only know that Godzilla 2014 and Kong: Skull Island have short films on them. GvK has just production stuff on it and I only own King of the Monsters on Blu-ray 3D with no 2D copy so I can't tell. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all of short films on DVD/BD are special features except it's a collection of shorts 2001:4DD6:6F8B:0:B8D2:F07B:A0E1:AAC5 (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Characters getting their own articles

Look I don't really know how it works but should the the characters in the franchise have their own list articles one for humans and the other for the Kaiju/Titans? And isn't there enough validity for certain characters to have their own Wikipedia page? Characters like these humans (Mark Russell, Madison Russell, and Ishirō Serizawa) and Titans (Godzilla "Monsterverse", King Kong "Monsterverse", and the Skullcrawlers). I'm just wondering. 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It all comes down to notability, per WP:NF. We don't want to create an article that is reliant on in-universe material or trivial content that only fanboys would be interested in, per WP:FAN. Is there enough reliable sources to warrant a full article beyond in-universe info? Like Critical responses to the character(s), development and writing behind the character(s)? Godzilla (MonsterVerse) is a solid jumping off point because it provides additional information beyond in-universe info. That could also apply to an article dedicated to the list of characters. Personally, I think the list is fine the way it is right now. Armegon (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look I'm not an expert at this but at least in your opinion wouldn't at least Kong warrant a Wikipedia article? Like a these articles here 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5? I don't know too many other place. I'm just asking if any others are suitable for it's own article? 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd say there's enough sources for the MonsterVerse Kong to warrant his own article. Armegon (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know anymore sources and plus I don’t know how to make a new Wikipedia article myself. I wanted to discuss with someone who knew how and maybe they could work on it. Look I’m the kind of person likes to discuss something with someone savvy at this and see if it’s valid. 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can start a draft at Draft:Kong (MonsterVerse), or alternatively just go right at it and edit the Kong (MonsterVerse) redirect. I do not think the human characters meet notability requirements at this point. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the character articles, I honestly doubt the MUTOs are notable for a standalone article (hence this tag a few months ago). They are a group of minor CGI characters that only have had one major appearance, and the Reception and Appearances sections are rather bare-bones. I've actually been meaning to take it to AfD, but just haven't found the time to do so. I suggest those who have worked on that article expand it or redirect it outright. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I'm not discouraging/dissuading you from taking the issue to afd if you so choose but it would be pointless. They will see that there's enough material and enough cited sourced to keep the article and they'll recommend expanding on the article rather than deleting it outright. Armegon (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2023

This edit request to MonsterVerse has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Skull Island series will have 8 episodes GoodMorningEngland (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2023

This edit request to MonsterVerse has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

39.50.198.96 (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. {{Skull Crawler}} doesn't exist. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Chitwood, Adam (October 20, 2017). "Exclusive: 'Pacific Rim Uprising' Director Says Crossover with 'Godzilla' and 'King Kong' Is Possible". Collider. Complex Media. Retrieved October 22, 2017.

[2] Kit, Borys (March 10, 2017). "'Godzilla vs. Kong' Film Sets Writers Room (Exclusive)". The Hollywood Reporter. Prometheus Global Media. Retrieved March 10, 2017.

[1]

[2]