Talk:SpaceGodzilla

message: GODZILLA VS KING GHIDORAH and the HEISEI TIMELINE 
Author: Keith Aiken, SciFi Japan http://www.scifijapan.com/ 
Kazuki Omori is a very sloppy writer, but GODZILLA VS KING GHIDORAH does fit within the Heisei timeline without ruining or contradicting the other films. Just saying the movie is not part of continuity or that it erases the events in GODZILLA 1985 and BIOLLANTE may be easy, but it's not accurate according to Toho. Since they make and own these movies it's their call. With a little effort, seeing how the pieces fit together is not too hard. 
There are a few things the viewer needs to keep in mind regarding the Heisei films: 
1. Toho says the timeline included G54 and G85-to DESTOROYAH. That's it, no adding or cutting of movies. 
2. A good explanation should not contradict anything shown in any of those movies. 
3. The viewer should add as little guesswork to the story as possible. Any explanation that requires a lot of fan-created events never shown onscreen is junk IMO. 
Combining sloppy writing and time travel is just asking for problems, but if you follow the 3 'rules' above the Heisei Godzilla timeline goes like this: 
GODZILLA VS KING GHIDORAH picks up with Godzilla still weakened by the ANB virus from GODZILLA VS BIOLLANTE. During the military conference early in GODZILLA VS KING GHIDORAH Miki states that Godzilla is so weak he hasn't moved from his resting place in the Sea of Japan in nearly 3 years. 
The Futurians appear in 1992. They have a book written by reporter Kenichiro Terasawa that theorizes that Godzilla was created from a dinosaur that was discovered on Lagos Island during WWII. The Futurians say that their own analysis shows a 90% chance the Terasawa is right. Two things contradict that; Yamane's theory behind G54 in the original GODZILLA (which was conceived by Godzilla’s creators Ishiro Honda and Tomoyuki Tanaka with writer Takeo Murata), and the events in DESTOROYAH (also written by Omori, the writer/director of GODZILLA VS KING GHIDORAH) that prove the 54 and 84-95 Godzillas are two different beasts. If the Lagos dinosaur was G54, then preventing its transformation into Godzilla would have zero effect on G84. The Futurians’ plan is flawed from the start. 
The Futurians say that Godzilla will soon revive and attack nuclear power plants, causing fallout that will make Japan uninhabitable for centuries. Emi later tells Terasawa that this is a lie; in her time Godzilla had never recovered from the ANB. For all intents and purposes he was beaten. The Futurians real plan was to take over Japan before it could become the most powerful nation on earth. 
The group travels back in time to 1944. Miki senses that the dinosaur is Godzilla, but she has never met the 1954 Godzilla. Of course she recognizes it as the Godzilla she encountered in GODZILLA VS BIOLLANTE. 
The wounded dinosaur is teleported to the Bering Sea in 1944. It is NOT transported thru time as many people incorrectly assume. 
The group returns to 1992 to find things are exactly the same as when they left, and everyone still remembers Godzilla (you think that would be a tip off). Futurian leader Wilson receives a report from the Japanese Self Defense Force that Godzilla is no longer in the Sea of Japan (you think he'd bother to check for himself, but he doesn't). This is easily explained; Godzilla simply moved. In Omori's GODZILLA VS BIOLLANTE the JSDF cannot track Godzilla when he is moving underwater. This was shown at the mid-point of that film; watch the scene where they expected Godzilla to attack Tokyo and were caught completely off-guard when he surfaced near Osaka instead. 
The Futurians betray everyone, and Shindo's nuclear sub heads to the Bering to attempt to recreate Godzilla from the dinosaur. 
Miki senses Godzilla (not the dinosaur) moving slowly in the Bering Sea, which further proves Godzilla was not removed from history. This surprises Terasawa, so he does some research and finds a newspaper report on a nuclear submarine that sank in the Bering Sea in the 1970s. This nuclear accident is what mutated the dinosaur into the 84 Godzilla; by moving the dinosaur the Futurians didn't “uncreate” G54, they aided the creation of G84. This is confirmed when Shindo's sub doesn't find the dinosaur, but an ANB-weakened Godzilla instead. Godzilla absorbs the sub's nuclear energy, which burns off the ANB infection and increases Godzilla's size to 100 meters. 
Everything else is in the film pretty clear, I think. 
The Heisei Series timeline goes like this: 
1944: Dinosaur moved to Bering Sea. 
March 1954: Bikini H Bomb test. 
1954: The H Bomb tests mutate an amphibious creature into the first Godzilla (50 meters tall), and destroy its undersea environment. This leads to the events shown in the original GODZILLA; when the first Godzilla attacks Japan and is killed by the Oxygen Destroyer. 
Late 1970s: Nuclear sub accident in Bering Sea creates 2nd Godzilla (80 meters tall) from dinosaur (proof: newspaper headline in GODZILLA VS KING GHIDORAH) 
1984: Events in GODZILLA 1985. 2nd Godzilla attacks Japan and is dumped into volcano at Mt Mihara. 
1990: Events in GODZILLA VS BIOLLANTE. Godzilla is infected by ANB. 
1992: Events in GODZILLA VS KING GHIDORAH. 
1993-1994: GODZILLA AND MOTHRA, GODZILLA VS MECHAGODZILLA II 
1995: GODZILLA VS SPACE GODZILLA refers to events in BIOLLANTE, proving that film is still part of the timeline. 
1996: GODZILLA VS DESTOROYAH refers to events in the original GODZILLA, and states clearly that the original and Hesiei Godzillas are not the same monster. 
This by no means a perfect explanation, but it answers most of the questions and should clear up some of the confusion. User:Dark-Hyena 02:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello, you pointed out as a reason for reverting the addition to an external link to Wikizilla that, apparently, "Wikipedia does not allow addition of links to fanmade wikis." This is flatly and simply false, especially with independent, non-Wikia wikis. Every single Pokémon page links to Bulbapedia (just look at Meowth as a random example, you can look through all 700+ Pokemon character pages and there are links to Bulbapedia there), every single Futurama episode page links to The Infosphere (Time Keeps On Slippin' is a random example as well), [neither of the wikis I've mentioned before are even on the "List of wikis" page by the way, so a 'notability' argument  at least for independent wikis cannot be made] countless Star Wars pages like Han Solo and speeder bike link to Wookieepedia, Star Trek pages like Spock or Mudd's Passion (an individual episode of a TV show)0 link to Memory Alpha, Warcraft pages like Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game or Make Love, Not Warcraft link to Wowpedia, and there is likely more examples to be out there. So please don't disallow the addition of this measly link. 47.32.198.2 (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. I hate to say it, but the anon is right here. Why disallow links from one wiki when this site so clearly relies on hundreds, if not thousands of links from other wikis which are just as conjectural, if not even more than Wikizilla. It's worth noting that many of the Godzilla pages rely on information from Toho Kingdom, which is in itself a fansite and therefore can be categorized under WP:ELNO. What gives? Might this be a case of favouritism? --BrayLockBoy (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem is like the IMDB, anyone can edit one of these wiki pages so the sheer amount of misinformation is very unencyclopedic. Some of those pages made me laugh with the inane amount of misinformation and I'm fairly knowledgeable in the genre. (I have a pretty vast collection of Japanese periodicals and reference books). You can send anything to the IMDB and they will accept it. So for these fan/franchise specific wiki's, any 6 year old kid can edit the Wikizilla page and post whatever they want. At least with some of these fan sites (like Tohokingdom) they are run by fairly knowledgeable fans and in TK case get alot of their information from Japanese source materials. I think that's what sets it apart from a fan specific encyclopedia that anyone can edit. And if this site does rely on "hundreds if not thousands of links from other wikis" shouldn't that be brought up for discussion? I have never came across a page that relies on another wiki for information as that can get dangerous if the wiki being cited is full of misinformation.Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  " Some of those pages made me laugh with the inane amount of misinformation" -- This is so brazenly untrue that it made me laugh. Care to point to one single piece of 'misinformation'? Really. And you say "any 6 year old can edit a Wikipedia page" as if that regularly happens. I want to make it perfectly clear that you aren't confusing Wikizilla.org with godzilla.wikia.com. Because if you do realize that they are separate, I have no clue why you would say something as false as "wikizilla.org is full of misinformation." 47.32.198.2 (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Arguing that an external link to a wiki cannot be added just because a wiki can potentially be edited by anyone is a poor reason to justify deleting external links to them on sight. As previously mentioned, numerous pages on Wikipedia include external links to fan-made and fan-run wikis just like Wikizilla. Just because anyone can edit a wiki doesn't mean wikis are automatically full of misinformation at all times. Wikizilla, like any reliable wiki or fan site, has a staff of administrators and bureaucrats who observe every single edit made to a page and attempt to confirm their accuracy and remove any and all definite misinformation. Wikipedia allows external links to wikis that have staffs like this who prevent the addition of misinformation, hence why all of the Pokemon pages link to Bulbapedia and all the Star Trek pages link to Memory Alpha. There's no reason not to allow Godzilla pages to link to Wikizilla (wikizilla.org, not godzilla.wikia.com, which actually is a wiki where random 6-year-olds insert false information with no oversight). You also mention how hilariously inaccurate and unreliable the IMDb pages for Godzilla films often are, yet almost all of the Godzilla film pages here from what I can see include external links to IMDb. If you're afraid to link to a wiki because you're worried it could be as misinformative as IMDb, yet the pages still link to IMDb anyway, what does that accomplish?140.254.77.225 (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In conjunction with the above response, I'll let the accusation that WZ is an unreliable site slide, but only to an extent. From doing a slight bit of digging, the website was indeed unreliable quite a few years ago. From what I can see (on Wikizilla.org, not Wikia), their information is now heavily sourced, with references to authoritative sources produced by Toho itself. Therefore, Giantdevilfish's argument that the site is inaccurate just doesn't hold any water with me. If you want any more evidence, looking at the site's policies reveals that they are strongly against misinformation and plagiarism too, with blatantly stolen information being deleted on sight. --BrayLockBoy (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Having read your comment on this, I can tell you clearly know nothing about the website. Wikizilla, like Toho Kingdom cites multiple official sources and is run by an organized staff of fans that have great knowledge in the Godzilla franchise and many others. To claim that Wikizilla can't be added to these articles because it's an open site that can be edited by anybody is absurd when Pokemon pages and Doctor Who pages have links leading to Bulbapedia and TARDIS Data Core wiki. If you tell Wikizilla that they can't have links here, then you better go and tell Bulbapedia and TARDIS Data Core wiki the exact same thing. Also, as BrayLockBoy has pointed out, you said that IMDB is a bad source of information yet you are fine with having links to that site on the Godzilla pages.EncyclopediaGojira (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Could you please point out where I said I'm fine with the IMDB having links on the Godzilla pages? No I'm not fine with any IMDB links to the Wikipedia. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth and misquoting me thank you. And where is this heavily sourced coming from? I was looking at their King Kong vs Godzilla page and the sources contain 6 cites with 4 coming from Amazon(!)http://wikizilla.org/wiki/King_Kong_vs._Godzilla#ReferencesGiantdevilfish (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said you were "fine" with IMDb links on Godzilla pages, I was making the point that there factually are IMDb links on almost all of the Godzilla film pages. IMDb is practically the benchmark of an unreliable site where anyone can add anything with no oversight, yet it receives links without any argument. Meanwhile, external links to Wikizilla are disallowed just because it can technically be edited by anyone like IMDb? That does not add up to me.2607:FCC8:E983:EA00:F809:6932:D201:87E7 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Fine. the site has recently undergone a fork and a general improvement of the pages, it seems. I can't speak for the reliability of the sources; I did not add them. However, I think describing the website as 'inane' was a kick below the belt. The site's been struggling to throw off the derogatory and often downright incorrect accusations that are frequently thrown at it for years now. I've checked the sources which come from Amazon, and those refer to the home media releases of the film, specifically the region and publisher information. This took me only a few seconds to check the sources. I'm only assessing the situation as best I can, and I do apologise if I come off as being one-sided. --BrayLockBoy (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

text: "The only problem is like the IMDB, anyone can edit one of these wiki pages so the sheer amount of misinformation is very unencyclopedic. Some of those pages made me laugh with the inane amount of misinformation and I'm fairly knowledgeable in the genre." This shows that you clearly don't like IMDB, yet there are still links to IMDB on the Godzilla pages. If you are unhappy with them being there, how come they have not been removed? As for the King Kong vs Godzilla page, that is one page out of over 2,700. If you check pages like the Godzilla page, you can see that Wikizilla does indeed cite official sources. As for the Amazon sources being listed, they are being used for the home video releases that are listed on the page.EncyclopediaGojira (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Again show me where I said I'm fine with the IMDB being on Godzilla pages? You said "yet you are fine with having links to that site on the Godzilla pages." I am? Wow. That's news to me. Now going back to the King Kong vs Godzilla page on that site. It contains no sourced information. And the references section simply lists home video releases. Can you give me links to Godzilla pages on that site that contain numerous viable sources? Even Godzilla 1954 which is the granddaddy of all Godzilla movies hardly has any sources . The only sources are from Amazon and a blog. http://wikizilla.org/wiki/Godzilla_(1954_film)#ReferencesGiantdevilfish (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: To remind you once again, Wikipedia links to wikis are allowed if they meet criteria of stability (as we have been saying all along). By that ticket we shouldn't even be having this argument. By the way, if you're going to say "Toho Kingdom uses many materials," how do you know that for certain? They list literally zero sources the vast majority of the time. That is radically, radically unreliable and they have made errors throughout the years like Godzilla vs. The Devil and Little Godzilla's Underground Adventure. So if you're going to brush away Wikizilla.org now for what it was back on Wikia many years ago, you should on the same grounds delete all Toho Kingdom links because they list no sources and also have made/spread misinformation. In addition, I'm more concerned about you pointing out misinformation rather than ripping Wikizilla for no sources. Again, Toho Kingdom literally uses none either, which especially for box office and budget information would be rather important. 47.32.198.2 (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, no citations are needed for things such as the plot of the movie or obvious knowledge such as the film's release date and things you can get by just watching the film's ending credits. That already strikes through a huge chunk of your argument since these things don't need to cite the movie's credits or the specific minute this happens on the movie. Should Wikizilla add sources to all of that? Sure. But should Toho Kingdom too? Yes. This isn't a false dichotomy. How about you help it out then? 47.32.198.2 (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: http://wikizilla.org/wiki/Godzilla#References --- http://wikizilla.org/wiki/Godzilla_(2014_film)#References --- http://wikizilla.org/wiki/Zilla#References --- http://wikizilla.org/wiki/King_Ghidorah#References --- http://wikizilla.org/wiki/Gigan#References --- http://wikizilla.org/wiki/M.U.T.O.#References --- Some of those pages may not contain a lot of sources, but they are good, official sources used to provide reference for some information on the page.EncyclopediaGojira (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Well, I checked Wiki's official guidelines on allowing open wikis and it clearly states (check here WP:ELNO, rule #12) that what is not allowed are Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked. To a certain extent, Wikizilla may fit that exception. If the editors of Wikizilla are truly hard-checking their facts and such, then Wikizilla does meet the criteria of stability with substantial number of editors. Personally, I don't think Wikizilla should be used to cite sources here on the official Wikipedia but specifically only as an external link. Armegon (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly our point. We aren't trying to include Wikizilla as a source on pages, just as an external link, similar to what is done on numerous pages related to other franchises that link to a fan-run wiki.2607:FCC8:E983:EA00:18FF:FC12:7A87:C394 (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it comes down to a vote, I approve to adding Wikizilla as an external link. Armegon (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Is it okay to take your silence as a concession, admin? I am legitimately curious. It's been more than a week since your last response. I will resume adding the links to these pages, please leave me a message if you still want to continue this discussion. 47.32.198.2 (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

text:  Since it has been over 2 months and there has been no response, and TurokSwe is going around and removing these links after we have made the case for it to be added, I'll make an official vote. I vote for the addition of links to Wikizilla.org. 493Titanollante (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

text:  I can say that I concur with this. I am strongly for the inclusion of links to Wikizilla.org. Frankly, I thought that this issue had been resolved, but due to TurokSwe running around deleting all the links, I guess a vote is necessary. --BrayLockBoy (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

text:  I also agree to include our links in here. גודזילה (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

text:  I also agree, Wikizilla should be an external link here. MosuFan2004 (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

text:  I must agree too. Wikizilla links should be kept on these pages and the reasoning for them being removed is laughably flawed. EncyclopediaGojira (talk) 19:46, 13th January 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to keep this vote up for 10 days from now (until Jan 24) to allow for more responses. That should be more than enough time for others to input. 493Titanollante (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Okay... we've waited for a long amount of time, still no dissenting votes. We've reached a consensus here. 68.185.215.47 (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding external links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on SpaceGodzilla. 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/20081222115345/http://dvdcult.com/rev_GvsSG.htm to http://www.dvdcult.com/rev_GvsSG.htm
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) 07:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion