Talk:Godzilla, King of the Monsters (comic book)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work!.

North8000 (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

"Other Godzilla references in Marvel Comics"

I've removed this section as it seems to be a list of trivia with only primary sources and some of them were a bit weak. Which is a bit of a shame, as it's a fun idea that Godzilla exists in the MU as both a pop-culture touchstone and as an actual monster that flooded Las Vegas, but we really need a reliable secondary source covering said phenomenon rather than an arbitrary list of references; if nothing else there's nothing rock-solid to say that it isn't Godzilla-the-Marvel-anti-hero in any of those. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@BoomboxTestarossa: using language like "respectable" and "healthy" to describe sales violates WP:NPOV. You should either place these words in quotation marks if these words are used in the source or remove them altogether. Regards, Willbb234 21:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

If only there was some way you could edit it with words to the same effect that are NPOV. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you telling me I should do this? Willbb234 23:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Willbb234 is there a reason you can't? Collaborative project, innit. I can't see an issue with it as paraphrasing to give context rather than a bald figure, but if you take umbrage at it and feel it should be phrased better you're welcome to do so and probably could have done so with less effort than you've spent carping on the talk page. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It might come as a surprise to you but I don't have the October 2004 issue of Back Issue! and thus I cannot see the language used. I'm also not here to correct your mistakes, you should do that yourself. Also you should assume good faith. Willbb234 13:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Willbb234 why? You didn't. And only one of the sources is from Back Issue, the other is quoted in the reference. I'm not changing it because I think you're quibbling over semantics from something obvious in context - the 200k needs contextualising as a bald figure that means little (it would be bad for a TV audience but fantastic for a football match), whereas the ongoing sales are relevant due to the title being cancelled for other reasons. If you or anyone else wants to change it, they can, and I wouldn't care as long as the reasons for the mentions were maintained. Putting quotes around any language that could possibly be interpreted as POV is absurd when paraphrasing is possible, unless you want to go around and do it for, say, every media-related article that uses the phrase success for starters. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

You'll have to point out where I didn't assume good faith because I'm really struggling to find it. As I have already said, I don't have access to the sources so I don't know the language used which is why I first suggested you would do it as you clearly have access to the sources. Pointing to other examples on wikipedia is a typically flawed argument and is not a good defense on your part. Willbb234 19:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)