Talk:The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms

message: Plainly someone has been doing some extra-curricular research on the film's dinosaur, no?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.160.225 (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Undinosaurian skull"? 

message: The plot summary is completely wrong. The WikiZilla entry on B20k is excellent.  Is it unethical to just copy and paste it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.225.81 (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2012‎ (UTC)
:Yes, it's a copyright violation to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot section 

message: Is there some compelling reason to violate the MOS in this article?  If not, the pseudo-headers should be fixed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The compellling reason is not to overwhelm the TOC with unnecessary hierarchical levels, and that the MOS is wrong - it's semi-colons which make screen-readers choke, whereas bold is just read as bold, just like every other bold word in every other article.  There is no compelling reason to follow MOS if MOS is mistaken, since MOS is not policy, but a guideline, and is not mandatory.  If you make it mandatory by insisting that it always be followed, then you've elevated it from a guideline to policy.  If you'd like that to be the case, that's fine, please go start an RfC to make MOS ACCESS a policy, and if it passes, great.  In the meantime, as ArbCom has repeated stated in numerous cases, edit warring to enforce MOS is a very, very bad idea. BMK (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody said it was mandatory – the guideline banner itself at the top of the page says it will have exceptions.  If there isn't one for this case, I fail to see why it should be ignored.  Just because you don't like it?  I don't think that's a particularly good reason to ignore a guideline.  If it means so much to you that you're going to bold and italicize random words in your replies, I guess I could just drop the matter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you actually read what I wrote? BMK (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I did.  You know there's , right?  It seems kind of tedious to mention something that addressed in the guideline itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn;t do the same thing.  With unnecesary hierarchical levels, the "back of the book" sections (see also, references, notes, bibliography, further reading, external links, etc.) take up a inordinately large part of the TOC, at the expense of the actual content of the article -- and they're totally unnecessary.  If someone's going to navigate to find notes and sources, a simple "References" in the TOC is sufficient, there's totally no need for all the rest. We're here to serve our readers, not to blindly follow MOS, come hell or high water. BMK (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Again this issue comes up, despite BMK's comments on an admin's talkpage not to do this again. MOS:ACCESS is pretty clear, and I concure with NRP. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[MOS:ACCESS]] 

message: Armond White was born in 1953, so he's unlikely to have written the review.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4202:B5F:7098:46A9:B15B:835 (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  A.W. not Armond White 

message: This is another one of those culturally and historically significant films to both WikiProject Horror/Film that has been sadly neglected and forgotten by editors (sighs). I've been seeing a lot of these kind of articles that are of Top or High importance that have just sitting in a very poor state of development. Hopefully someone will see this post and have enough passion for this film that it can finally be given the attention it deserves.--Paleface Jack 15:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup and Expansion