Talk:Godzilla, King of the Monsters!

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Godzilla, King of the Monsters!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150620001731/http://www.chroniclebooks.com/titles/eiji-tsuburaya-master-of-monsters-paperback.html to http://www.chroniclebooks.com/titles/eiji-tsuburaya-master-of-monsters-paperback.html/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006135549/http://www.historyvortex.org/GodzillaAmerica1.html to http://www.historyvortex.org/GodzillaAmerica1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150620001731/http://www.chroniclebooks.com/titles/eiji-tsuburaya-master-of-monsters-paperback.html to http://www.chroniclebooks.com/titles/eiji-tsuburaya-master-of-monsters-paperback.html/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Criterion":
From Destroy All Monsters: 
From Godzilla (1954 film): 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Godzilla, King of the Monsters!]] 

message: Article says: “…and it made its television broadcast debut in 1959 on KHJ-TV in Los Angeles.”
Which just goes to show you can’t believe everything you read in books. KHJ in Los Angeles aired Godzilla Monday through Friday, King Kong on Saturday, and Godzilla once again on Sunday, July 6-12 1959. At least 5 other markets aired Godzilla before that. The earliest I know of is WOR in New York City, which ran a schedule similar to its 1956 King Kong debut: twice nightly Monday through Friday and 3 times on Saturday, October 13-18 1958. Source: The New York Times.  71.162.113.226 (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And the comment above goes to show that you can't believe everything some random person tells you without evidence. A verified source was provided for the KHJ claim. Where's your source? Just saying "source: New York Times" is not enough. Where's the link? Where's the article? We can't alter content without a citable source. Armegon (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Well, if we're wrong then provide evidence if it isn't hard to check as you claim. Otherwise, you're wrong. Plain and simple. We're not gonna do your homework for you. You made the dispute, so it's your responsibility to prove your claim. Armegon (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Making claims yet not providing evidence to back them up? Sounds like you're the one being wrong in public. We found a verified and authoritative source to back up our claims. We already did our homework and showed our work. All you've provided are claims and excuses not to prove them. Armegon (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

text: That's not evidence you provided. Anyone can make a false citation. We need indisputable evidence, a link to the article. Again, you brought up the dispute, so it's your responsibility to provide the link. What's so hard about that? Why the big fuss? The source we used is from the most authoritative and accurate scholar on the subject of Godzilla history. Therefore, it's reliable and it stays...unless you can prove it wrong with a link to the NYT article. Armegon (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

text: To answer your question, 1: the only TV debut date I know of is from the Ryfle source. I actually own the book and if I didn't, it's immediately accessible via a scanned digital version. That source, and likely the Kalat book, are the only sources immediately available to check the TV debut dates. 2: Yeah, I'd definitely concede to the newspaper source. But again, we need a link. Accurate info for Godzilla films are scarce, so we tend to rely on English books & commentaries published by verified journalists and authors like Ryfle, Godziszewski, Kalat, Ragone, England, Galbraith IV, and others. A text citation alone isn't enough, as it can be challenged by any other editor and reverted back to a more reliable source like Ryfle's book. Armegon (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV debut not KHJ 

message: In the “Filming and Dubbing” section, you might mention that besides adding Raymond Burr, Frank Iwanaga, body doubles, and Japanese voice actors, there was one more addition…another American actor who had a speaking role, although he’s uncredited. That’s Mikel Conrad as Burr’s editor George Lawrence to whom he relays the story. Interesting that they went to the trouble of filming his side of the phone conversation when they could have just used a distorted voice, or nothing but Burr listening and responding. 71.162.113.226 (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added him to the cast. Armegon (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  One More American 

message: The Reception should by its own section as its common practice for films in Wikipedia . I tried to change this but User:Armegon reverted it multiple times. UnkreativeFrog (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not common practice. You just want to follow a trend that you perceive as common practice. MOS:FILMCRITICS makes no rule or guideline that the Reception section should be its own section. Therefore, sections for each article should be determined on its own merits. Additionally, the critical response/reception for this article is too small to warrant a separate section compared to the reception section of the 1954 Godzilla article or, more recently, the Reception for Avatar: The Way of Water. Also, some of your edits are non-constructive because you're just unnecessarily moving things around, and even repeating one edit verbatum, with no good reason. There's a reason why everything was where it was and why the article passed GA nomination. But if it's an issue, I would not oppose to renaming the "Release" section to "Release and reception". It would cover all bases. Armegon (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constructive edits being reverted