Talk:Son of Kong

message: You know, I was just thinking...How could an earthquake collapse a whole island like that? Skull Island is really big; and that earthquake wasn't even that bad. Is this junk science or ludicriciy? Scorpionman 12:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all that big, but certainly in the tens of square miles. It's probably Junk Science. It's probable that they just didn't want to make a THIRD movie, and so did away with the whole thing. The island seems to just disintegrate and sink, which may make sense since it seems to be largely sedimentary. (Uplifted seabed, perhaps?) CFLeon 00:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Realistic Sinking? 

message: It seems like this entry has the same problems as the page for the original: editors insiting on precise identifications of the critters that the creators never intended. CFLeon 00:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creature Identifications 

message: Since Peter Jackson redid King Kong, is he planning to do a Son of Kong as well, or did he just have the expeditions in World of Kong take the place of a sequel? Ratso 17:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's too bad. He really oughta do one. Scorpionman 02:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remake 

message: Who says that Hilda's last name is Petersen? "Hilda" itself is nowhere in the film but in Helen Mack's billing in the opening credits. Admittedly, the IMDb says one Clarence Wilson has the uncredited role of "Mr. Petersen," but they do not say that this is Hilda's father (although their posted birth date for this actor definitely makes him old enough for that part), who himself is not named in any way shape of form in the movie. I plan to check my vid tonight and listen to EVERYBODY 's names and see if I can find a Petersen. Afterwards, I'll revise this article one way or another, depending on just what I do and do not find, unless somebody else has done something compatible with my search results in the interim (if identifying these characters as the Petersens comes out of the script, that certainly needs to be explained here). Ted Watson 20:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petersen---Where from? 

message: Some time ago I had a discussion with another user about whether the dinosaur names should be capitalized or not! Here is a link from Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs which proves that I was right about writing the names of the genera in upper case, no matter whether it's used in a scientific way or not: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs#Species. They even have to be italicized. General terms like tyrannosaur are not capitalized, whereas genera names like Styracosaurus are. Sometimes it might even be confusing if one writes the genus in lower case; in some cases the reader can't differ between genus and suborder/family.And if you take a look at other articles about dinosaur films, like e.g. King Kong (1933 film) or Jurassic Park (film), you will see that the names are always written in upper case. So in short, the names should remain captalized in order to obtain unity. Dutzi (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K., I see what Wiki's rules are on the point (I am the "another user"). However, by definition of much more fundamental Wiki rules, no Wiki page itself "proves" anything, and I do not believe it is correct, as there are far too many analogous books and articles on such that do no such thing (and in fact I see nothing on the linked-in page that indicates not to distinguish between formal, scientific discussion and informal, common usage, which is what SOK is; point it out and I'll apologize). This means that those other Wiki articles listed do not qualify as precedents, either. Nevertheless, as capitalization, or even italicization, of these words does not affect one's ability to read, enjoy or learn-from the article, I won't push the point any further. (Note to administration: See, I can be very civil and concede an argument where I still think I'm right when it's called for.)  Ted Watson (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalizing the dinosaur names 

message: The image :Image:Denham and Hilda.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Denham and Hilda.jpg

message: Note to anonymous IP 128.151.71.16: If you'll look at various articles, for example here, you will find several tags saying, "Lists of miscellaneous information should be avoided. Please relocate any relevant information into appropriate sections...." That's what I'm doing, avoiding starting a "Trivia" list; it's not exactly plot information, but there's just no better place to put it. To fire a pre-emptive shot, you already had the opportunity to dispute the info's notability, but what you said then effectively conceded it, so it's too late now. Also, as I said before, if you think you know better than me how to edit, register! Just leave it alone, please. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Hilda's non-name 

message: User:DT29 has "moved" this article from "The Son of Kong" to "Son of Kong," claiming in his edit summaries thereto that it is the "Actual/official title." Such a move should never be done without discussion, and in this case is pure "D" wrong. When I changed this film's title in the general King Kong article's "Filmography" section to include the definite article just a few days ago, I did so having checked my own Turner/RKO VHS of the film for the on-screen title. "The" is there, and you cannot get any more "actual" or "official" than that. However, I will await DT29's response before reversing him. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody has said anything once I've put the New Year's holiday behind me, I'll move this article back, per the above. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K., it goes back! --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Actual/official title" 

message: I read the previous debate that leads to a move and back. The mentioned note about the two titles is not currently in the article. The article's title is Son of Kong, yet two major linked sources, IMDb and Variety, use The Son of Kong instead. IMDb says Son of Kong was the title used before release (in trailers and posters), not the title of the actual film. On top of that, the current Wiki article itself refers to the film as The Son of Kong in the production section. I believe the current situation needs some kind of rectification. Kumagoro-42 00:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Son of Kong vs. The Son of Kong