Talk:Godzilla: Unleashed/Archive 1

message: "The game will not be playable at Comic Con '07 at the Classic Media Booth."
Really? Is there a reason why its not appearing somewhere is notable?
"Footage of Godzilla 2000 and Kiryu fighting can be downloaded on the net."
Very helpful. Manaroa 11:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So people don't get dissappointed by going and not seeing it?--Marhawkman 15:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think that anyone is going to just assume that a certain game will be at a certain convention. Why would you go to a convention specifically to see a game, without knowing that it will be there? Also, there are obviously going to be a lot of games that aren't there, so why is this one notable over any other? --The F50 Man 18:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why bother mentioning it then? 

message: I'll be surprised if any godzilla game doesn't have megalon. Since he's in this game, it will be a sweet game. The only way if it's better is if hedorah is in the game. GO 1970s!!! Pikazilla 20:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although you are obviously enthused with this game, as am I, I do not think that this is the place to discuss enthusiasm. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing the article, not opinions on it's subject matter, unless they are useful to the article's creation. Sorry to dis you, but you should probably use a forum or something.--The F50 Man 18:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this game is cool 

message: I have removed the "rumoured monsters" list. 
Please, do NOT speculate on which upcoming monsters will be in the game. The article should feature only CONFIRMED monsters. Wikipedia is for hard facts, not fanboy speculation. So far, the only characters we know for *sure* will be in the game are Godzilla 2000, Mechagodzilla, Megalon and Final Wars Gigan. Don't add anymore until there is an official confirmation! K00bine 01:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Monsters

message: It has been requested that a photo of some sort it used to better visualize the page.  I'm not sure how to add pictures but I know that IGN has four of them on their wibsite, is it possible to use any of these? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.70.2.35 (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: *A person has readded the list claiming some person called "Simon Strange", who apparantly worked on DAMM and STE, has confirmed that the entire STE roster will be returning in GU. Assuming this is true, then could someone post a citation such as a link to an interview or an article or somesuch? I'm not part of some eeeeevil anti-Toho Kingdom conspiracy out to suppress their influence, (in fact, I've had an account there for over a year, though I mostly lurk- I'm "Steve". Yes, I've seen the thread on TK, I'm not a "basher", I am in fact a member!)  I'm just a wiki-dork trying to keep Original Research out of the various articles I stalk. If someone can dig up an official citation then by all means, you can have your list of new and/or returning characters and I won't object. :) 
K00bine 17:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Plz???

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsters_in_Godzilla_the_Series#Norzzug_the_Iron_Cat
Norzzug is the only currently existing sphinx Godzilla villain. What was the art with a Sphinx shown in it?--Marhawkman 12:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sphinx? 

message: As far as I know, Wikipedia ain't no Crystal Ball (WP:CRYSTAL) So, why are possible kaiju (monsters, as stated in the article) listed. While useful, this information is only prediction, and as such violates the whole crystal ball policy thing. Could someone clear up if this is untrue?68.55.108.224 01:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's part of the roster of monsters seen in Godzilla: Save the Earth. Most of which were also featured in the Previous game Godzilla: Destroy all monsters melee.--Marhawkman 10:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Monsters 

message: That banner with MechaGodzilla? Straight from Toho Kingdom. All the the pictures? Lifted from IGN. They still got the dang watermarks!
:They're still copyrighted to Toho pictures.--Marhawkman 16:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stolen Pictures 

message: The boxart that was posted here is false, so I removed it.  If you need me to, I can post a link to prove the point, but I think the image speaks for itself.
Also
Look through the images and you'll see three new kaiju: King Ghidorah, Anguirus, and King Ceasar.  There is also a new arena which is obviously Monster Island.  I updated the page to include this info.
I would just like to say "Sorry" for not believeing those images...
I checked with guys at Toho Kingdom. They are real. Feel free to put them back. Angry Sun 02:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Image and New Kaiju/Arena 

message: Quit editing in King Ceaser, Anguirus, and King Ghidorah to the specific fraction places. Unless whoever editing the monster into fraction is with Atira and Pipeworks, I suggest stopping. We don't know where they would go to. For all we know, King Ceaser and Anguirus in Mutants fraction and King Ghidorah in Earth Defenders. Ghost Rider X 03:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Monster Faction

message: I'm suggesting that some sort of lock be placed on this topic, you know, because people seem to think that Wikipedia is a place to post speculation.  This Unconfirmed kaiju list that keeps popping up is also getting highly annoying.
Well then tell Ghost Rider to stop being so... err how do I say this without getting a warning... (Removed) The Showa Angurius has always been an Earth Monster. And it is the Showa Angurius.
King Caesar is a Hybrid... THIS DOES NOT MEAN HE WILL COME FROM SPACE! He has the Showa Eyes and the Final Wars Body. Just because he's more FW than Showa doesn't mean he'll come from space!
King Ghidorah has always been the Alien Leader.
In DAMM he was the front of the operation.
In STE you see the Queen send two monsters down and guess who was one?
KING GHIDORAH! Angry Sun 21:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock 

message: I'm typing this because I'm sick and tired of the Vandalism that 69.142.43.130 creates.
He believes everything IMPORTANT! should be LOWERCASED! Angry Sun 03:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block this IP 

message: Whoever is deleting the confirmed monsters from the DS game STOP IT. They were confirmed in Nintendo Power for god sakes! And why the hell did you also delete Mothra?! You kept Gigan and they're in THE SAME FRICKING SCREENSHOT! ARE YOU FRICKING BLIND?! Mariofan 9:25, 25 June 2007 UTC
I don't give a crap. 
Until I see some freaking screenshots I'm removing them all.
And Nintendo isn't making the game.
Pipeworks is. So how can I trust someone who isn't making the game?
AND THAT WAS BATTRA! Angry Sun 15:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confirmed Monsters in DS version

message: You got to be kidding me. Now you guys are fighting on forums about this too? *sigh*. Keep it on Wikipedia so we know what's going on. If you get a response, it's OR anyway. In fact, I would put my money that Mr. Strange is not a reliable source, since "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." which doesn't really bring a forum posting to mind when I think about it.--Clyde (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good to know, but no one confirmed he worked for Pipeworks on this talk page (until now). Also, diaries are fine and accepted as sources. However, a random forum posting (not a specific information release type posting) can be interpreted in different ways, a problem not usually present with typical developer info, which is the problem we are facing right now. That is why I tend to doubt how reliable this is.--Clyde (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course we need to confirm everything. The basis of citations (which this article does not have any of) is that if any fact in the article is challenged, a specific citation is present to back it up. All I got out of the thread above (with K00bine) is that due to the secrecy of the project that only official releases and publications should be quoted and used. Further, if one worker makes one extraneous comment away from the official site on a forum, it is doubted that it can be taken seriously as an accepted published source that we can make use of. Again, I think the idea of using diaries in general is fine. I haven't looked closer, but that is not the issue at hand. I'm guessing the developer knows about them, and would have had them removed if anything compromising to game at this early stage was released. In my eyes, I've only been confirmed that this source is not to be trusted. It appears that the general consensus is to leave the hinting out on the grounds that it is speculation: smarter than your average bear speculation, but speculation none the less.--Clyde (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying he is kidding. What I am saying is the reliability of this source has come into question both in the form it was presented and the choice in semantics. Therefore, unless there are multiple or other sources asserting the same information, I'm not going to believe it. You say "And when he posts that Godzilla 90's had a Combo Defect." but other's don't agree that this is the meaning of the post. You say "He had a combo defect." Do you have the source for this assertion? Because if you do, it should mention Godzilla 90's and this problem will be solved. The other assertions you made are simply you're judgments on the character of one person, and are OR and POV. Unless you can find something of more substance (which could very well exist) it is not acceptable to add this in. If it turns out this fact is true backed by reputable sources, then by all means, add it in. However, in its current standing, the only source is a hazy and contested forum posting. This is not enough to justify including a fact about it in a rather high traffic unreleased game article.--Clyde (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are asserting a fact, it needs to have a citation. Period. This is an unreleased game, and we must be sure it is all verifiable. Reference it or it will be removed. It doesn't matter if I can read it, it matters if it is in the article as a citation. This is not you proving something to me; this is you adding a verifiable fact to the article.--Clyde (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole argument is a moot point anyway. I added the citations myself and found 2000 mentioned in tons of previews. If citations were here earlier, this would have never taken place.--Clyde (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be surprised if an editor reverted all the citations while undoing a minor edit. Just64helpin 01:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  *sigh* Neither would I.--Clyde (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Are we randomly adding external links in the discussion page? Click here please. Just64helpin 10:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No he's dropping the link to the interview I asked for earlier. Again, that doesn't matter anymore because I found text about Godzilla 2000 all over the place in different references.--Clyde (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Content dispute, continued

message: I will now be adding the three monsters to there respective Factions. Angry Sun 06:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You lose Ghost Rider 

message: :Try adding this to the article as an inline citation. Click here please. Just64helpin 10:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... this is for a different game. I can make an inline citation. It's just 

I don't know what you can cite with it though. Certainly nothing in this article form what I can see.--Clyde (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That interview was in 2005. There is no way it could have anything to do with Unleashed, much less confirming a character. It's about the wrong game.--Clyde (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof 

message: Okay nearly everything in the article is referenced now, there are only two things I still am looking for: confirmed DS characters and the general release date. If neither can be found, I think they should be removed or changed to TBA.--Clyde (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give me a link to both so they can be attributed to a source? If not, I don't think they can be included. As to the 23, I see a blurred image of 23 cards with question marks. To assume that those represent characters in the game would probably be true, but as of now it's speculation, original research, and our point of view. What if someone decides that the rest of the question marks represent levels? or missions? It may be wrong, but right now, we are all speculating. There are probably in the range of four published sources that say at least 16 monsters, which does not exclude your thoughts about 23. Until the site goes online, I would say retain the 16 in the article and include that screenshot saying "The Atari website with 23 cards, four of them turned over and showing confirmed monsters. That way we present no original research or point of view, we just state the obvious and let the reader figure it out.--Clyde (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I was asking for sources for the list of confirmed DS monsters and the release date. In regards to 23, I can see what you are talking about, but the "2" looks like a blob like "O". Clyde (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, that's from your point of view, but the blurriness sews the seeds of doubt, the same problem we had with the forum post. To make matters worse, there's not a single update about the having 23 monsters. If I my quote again "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true."--Clyde (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I seem to have been ousted from this discussion in favor of speculating about monsters based on a picture, but that's irrelevant. I'm approaching this as an editor, not a fan, which is probably why I seem like a robot. Imagine if a random editor shows up and says "Where's the proof that there are 23 monsters?" What do we say? "We have a blurry image that looks like 23 confirmed monsters and the word of a few editors that there are?" How long would that stand? "Where's the proof that this game is coming out in the fall?" Do we say "One of us vaguely remembers one of the employees saying that, but we don't know where or when." These things have to be backed up with sources. You're now sourcing monsters based on dark pictures, not actually sourced authors saying it? Very encyclopedic.--Clyde (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most recent archive I could find of the Atari Godzilla site is from April 10. I'm sure that doesn't help. Just64helpin 00:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine "Clyde" if you want to have solid scientific evidence that there are 23 monsters, and the game is releasing in fall, watch the official trailer: http://www.gametrailers.com/player/21271.html
As for Biollante "Angry Sun", I think we should wait for more information (beyond a tiny copyright mention) before putting her up as CONFIRMED FOR THE WII.  By the way, I do think she'll be in, but she hasn't been confirmed yet, so she doesn't belong in the article yet. Kaiju Corp 03:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: The image of the G-Fest poster was recently replaced with the mock-up cover. Official promotional material is usually preferred over fan-made boxart. Alternatively, an image of just the logo can be used in lieu of an official cover. Please discuss the matter here, but keep in mind that posting here does not instantly excuse a revert. The key is to attain consensus among other users first. Just64helpin 11:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox, cover art 

message: There is no proof that the crysals act as boundary lines, in fact, the rescent trailer has a quick scene that seems to look like an updated version of the green lines from DAMM and StE.  I'm not saying that we should replace it with that, because no news has come around about the boundary lines in the first place, I say we just get rid of it until we actually KNOW.
Also, we have three cities confirmed so far: New York, San Francisco, and Sydney.  If there is any objection to me adding the arenas, speak now and give a good reason why.  (Does anyone have an idea what the city is that has a volcano at its center?)Kaiju Corp 22:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crystals as the Boundary & Cities 

message: The article says ten, but only lists nine. The source given right after the 10 statement is the trailer to the video game, and they only list 4 in the trailer. So are there nine or ten? And do we have a source for the #10?-Andrew c [talk] 22:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  # of kaiju 

message: I think we shoudl start Archiving this Talk page. There's a lot of info here, and it should be archived on a seperate page and made fresh for new talks. --JohnVMaster 22:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New posts go to the bottom. Just64helpin 23:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving