"

 Article Name Change (PROTECTION OF PAGE AND VOTING) 
Calling the film ""Cloverfield (creature)"" seems to indicate that the creature is actually named Cloverfield. Seeing that there is no cite that I have seen confirming this, and, just as well, the first sentence of the article notes that the being is ""unidentified,"" I personally don't see why this article is named such. Shouldn't the article's title be changed? I think it should be called ""Cloverfield Monster,"" without the parenthesis. Is this fact... 
Don't like ""Cloverfield Monster,"" but I have been wondering if we shouldn't move it to something like ""Creature (Cloverfield)"" or ""Monster (Cloverfield)"".  Nither of those are particularly good, either.  The problem is that given that the thing doesn't appear to have any proper name, there's really no perfect place for the article to go right now.  Using a generic noun with (Cloverfield) after it seems to have the appropriate vagueness.  The producers tend to refer to it as 'creature', but most third-party sources are calling it a 'monster.'  We may as well flip a coin, really.  
I should also add that I don't hate where the article is now, either, though.  Like I said, naming an article on something that doesn't have a name is frustrating.    | Talk 
The movie's opening ""titles"" say ""US DOD... Multiple sightings of case designate ""Cloverfield"""". Best we can go with. '  
I believe that refers to the case itself or the code name of the camera, not the monster.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.244.213   
This has already be discussed in previous sections of the talk.  It seems the general concensous is, no it isn't an ideal title, but since we have nothing better, there isn't sufficient motivation to move it.  ""Cloverfield monster"" is certainly a likely candidate, but without an extremely reliable source, such as an official designation from the creative property holder, we may as well leave it where it is until such a source comes into existence.  A sequel looks rather undoubtable, and I should think chances are pretty good it will get a name within the fictional universe then. -  
I think ""Cloverfield (creature)"" seems fine.  Hello all,
The citation provided in the intro which apparently backs up the (not so fact) fact of Matt Reeves stating it is the name of the creature is not mentioned in the citation at all. He only explains why it is the title of the movie, it was a codename named after a Paramount property which stuck with the project, There were other codenames such as Slusho and Bertha.

However my point is not this, but the fact that the name of the creature is not Cloverfield but in fact the name of the military operation assigned to tackle the creature, as the film stated itself ""Case designated Cloverfield"", ha, not only this but the director itself has stated it is applied to the military operation, if you would be so kind to read the [2] citation in the intro I have provided. Hows that for an official designation from the creative property holder. Now good day to all, and this is why the article should be The Cloverfield creature. '  

I also question the quality of the source given, but that is discussed below.  I don't feel The Cloverfield creature is an appropriate title for this article either.  For one thing, there are two ""creatures"" in cloverfield, the main creature, and the parasites, both of which are discussed in this article.  For another thing, it sounds too official.  ""The Cloverfield creature"" is not it's official name either.  I think it is much better to just leave it as Cloverfield_(creature) and wait for more sources.  Eventually the creature will get a name, and at that point the page will just have to move again, so I'd like to see a stronger argument for why your name choice, or any other, is optimal and signifigantly better than it's original name. -[[Use