Talk:Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster

message: What the heck does that mean? 71.218.215.61 (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh, do you pass by my front? 

message: Trying to convince them to fight against Ghidorah, the Mothra larva first sprays Godzilla in the face with "threads" and Rodan seems to be laughing, then when Rodan gets the treatment next, it looks like Godzilla sits down on a rock and laughs83.37.123.24 (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Laughing?

message: I've removed the US poster. It's a cool addition to the article, but to use copywritten images, we need state why we are showing it. If we can answer the question "what is this image showing that can't be explained in prose?" in the article, than we can probably bring it back. Otherwise, I'd suggest leaving it out for now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I put that poster up there and the reason was to show the English version of the poster to reflect the fact that this is the English wikipedia and this was the physical representation of the films release in the English language Western market. Furthermore it will help readers understand its US distribution with a clear visual that can't really be covered in text. As well, the picture I uploaded featured the monster actors from the film which gives people an understanding of how the special effects of the film were done something that is far more explanatory than what can explained in text, showing the actors that brought the monsters to life. Even though this is non-free media, if its tagged according and has rationale it can be used, and that was the point of the upload in the first placeGiantdevilfish (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's cool to have these images, but they fail the copyright reasons. Unless there is something that can not be truly understood without showing it, we can't claim fair use. For example, showing simply "what they look like" is not strong enough. Check out the article I re-vamped up on Matango where I use a screenshot. It shows off the scars on the actors face which resembles victims of the bombing of Hiroshima. In this case, it's proper to show off what they look like as it helps user understand and compare and see why they film was nearly banned. I'd suggest reading WP:NFCI . It basically states that since your images provide no "critical commentary" that is backed up, we can't really use them. Which is lame, because I actually quite like the images you chose.  Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

text: I'm well aware of that link (which #4 states you can use promotional materials). But awhile back on another page I uploaded some images of production for a film that were deleted by some individual claiming the same lack of critical commentary. His deletion was refuted and it went to a noticeboard discussion and the consensus was that they could be used because they showed elements of the production which would help people understand the article better then simply words and they were tagged accordingly with a lack of a non-free alternative. You see this is really interpretation. Someone could say "Well it doesn't add any critical commentary to an article" while others could say "Well I disagree. I think it helps people understand the section more with those visuals". The wikipedia allows copyrighted images to be used which is why they have the fair use rationale templates or else it would simply not be allowed. The reason I upload these pics is so people could get a better understanding of the source material. For instance that photo of the three suit actors. I was showing that pic to some people at my work and they were like "Wow. So that's how those monsters look without the suits. That's interesting". I guess I could use a photo of the puppeteers working the Ghidroah necks which would illustrate that last portion of the production article better, but opted to use that photo for the simple fact it showed all three suit actors together in a publicity shot. Anyway if these uploads bother you so much wouldn't it be better to get a third person's opinion to see what  others have to say rather then deleting them and stating why you think they should be deleted?Giantdevilfish (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

text: I'll propose them for deletion only because I don't want to break any rules with an otherwise better article. Again, I do like the images and agree with you that they are interesting, but as you are familiar with wiki rules, arguing to save articles/images/etc. because they are "interesting" doesn't usually fly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting wasn't my argument. My argument was a better understanding of the material using a visual reference.Giantdevilfish (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was perhaps an illustration of how they fit into the suit rather than just what they look like, it would be a visual reference. Otherwise, it's just a non-free image of the actor that doesn't say anything other than showing what they look like. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

text: It's to show an aspect of the films production. The picture shows the three suit actors that played the monsters on film holding up the models that were used during filming for mostly far away shots and flying sequences (King Ghidorah and Rodan). The models are mentioned in the last sentence of the last paragraph of the production section of the article, so the picture illustrates this. Would you be happier if I uploaded a pic of the King Ghidorah suit being manipulated by wire works? Also alittle off topic here but I'm just curious about something. That shot you posted before of Akiko Wakabayashi. That is listed as public domain in Italy. How can that be used on the American wikipedia. Just because something is public domain in Italy doesn't mean its public domain in other countries, so how can that be used on a country's wikipedia page if the picture isn't necessarily public domain in that particular country?Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better for the image you are describing as it would provide context of something that can't be explained in prose that I'm sure you could find sources for, so it has supported context. As for the Wakabayashi picture, it may have been in appropriate, you'd have to ask the author. The general idea is that the image was published in Italy, and as copyright exists different in Italy, that image is public domain now. I'm not quite an expert on it, but I'm sure the user uploading it may be able to explain it a bit better. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: US Poster

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster. 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/
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) 14:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: To revisit this, the list of crew credits is based on the book Japan's Favorite Mon-Star: The Unauthorized Biography of the Big G. I was curious to look elsewhere to see what crew credits are shown. At AFI, beyond the film infobox credits, the art director, sound effects, and special effects personnel are listed. In The Toho Studios Story, for this film, the crew credits are shown here. This does not mean all these crew names should be listed -- the cast credits section afterward seems to pretty much list all of the cast members. Regardless, we can see that the special effects director and art director and lighting and sound are near the top. This is the kind of "rule of thumb" I mean that we should consider for crew lists. Maybe some overlap or combination of these would work. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Support: With this, at least there would be a degree of oversight. We can also use the Criterion Collection website to see who else is repeatedly referenced in the credits to further establish a rule of thumb. Armegon (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Reduce or remove: If you want this included, I would limit down to the special effects crew (there is no reason to re-iterate the director and cinematographer,etc.) and place is as a sub-heading section within the special effects section. however, Just because you can find lists of special effects crews online that does not state its notability as it has no context (I can find credits listing online and several filmographies, databases film guides, so so what? Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. " and per WP:NOTCATALOG, "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit." So I'd prefer if there was actual information on what we need to know these members, and those sources listed by  don't state them. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems consensus has grown in favor of crew lists at Wiki Film Project . So there's no need to regurgitate old arguments to perpetuate this dispute. And agreed. I will personally reduce the number of effects crew. optical effects is referenced three times. My fault. It can only be referenced once. Armegon (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to be rude, but don't talk things that aren't true. One user stated "This is an interesting discussion that I can't totally follow". El Millo says flat out "remove it", Donlago said "I don't know that I have a strong position on this one way or another...to me, just including a 'random' list of crew associated with a film does seem a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE," It really is only you and Erik who seem on board. Your argument against the last one was that WP:PERSONNEL exists, but as I've stated to you at least four times, that applies to WikiProjects:Albums, not as a wider wiki rule. If anything, I've tried to assume WP:GOODFAITH from you, and you are jumping from conversations to new points each. I've even tried to meet with you half way here, and stated several rules that would be against this, and you both you and Erik ignore it. I'm still assuming good faith in Erik, but you are clearly pushing content and honestly, if you can't explain how they follow these said rules I've stated above, I'm leaning towards your attitude towards it being Wikipedia:Ownership of content. You don't own these articles, and I feel like you've done great work, but this addition from what iv'e stated, from the several i've cited, make me really feel like you want them in for your own personal reasons and not to aid anyone reading wikipedia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if you feel that way. Like I responded in my talk page to your post, passions get high in talk page discussions. And I do genuinely apologize if you felt my conduct went to extreme levels. It wasn't my intention. With that said, it seems we have found a compromise. Erik proposed his rule of thumb, then you proposed reduce or remove. I support Erik's proposal and yours (to reduce). I've already reduced the number of crew members per your proposal. Armegon (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Armegon. I might suggest pacing down the crew to the "special effects crew" and maybe make it a sub-section of "Production -> Special effects -> special effects crew. I'd drop the "production manager, director, and assistant director" as if we were including these extra crew members because the film is made with an emphasis on the special effects.  i'm not sure if you'd agree but I think it would improve the focus of the "crew" section without re-iterating stuff we already know. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Interesting. You'd rather it be more focus on effects crew? The current version is pretty broad. It lists 4 effects members, and 4 non-effects members to merit it as a general crew list. In fact, it was the reduction of crew members that now makes the current version more broad. Armegon (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I just figure that's the main focus of production, so might as well make it at least seem in tune with that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Rule of thumb

message: , , to nominate this article for GA again you need to just follow the instructions at WP:GAN/I, and paste  at the top of this talk page.  A bot will take care of transforming that to the right format for a second review.  When you reverted to the old version, it just reactivated the old failed review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. - Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New GA nomination