Talk:Godzilla/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

List of Godzilla films?

Is missing. Anyone include date and film list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The bottom of the page contains the list of Godzilla movies and years. Having it twice would be redundant. Also, the Godzilla (franchise) page has the list. ScottishPig (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Millenium Godzilla.jpg

Image:Millenium Godzilla.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The name Gojira.

The story of Small Textthe name Goira coming from the nickname of a Toho employee was also published as part of the Official Godzilla Compendium (by J.D. Lees and Marc Cerasini, published by Random House in 1998) at the bottom of page 12. It is written as though it were fact, however, the employee is not identified. Excerpt below:

"Finding a title was still a problem. The tongue-twisting name Kaitei Niman Mairu Kara Kita Dai Kaiju (The Big Monster from 20,000 Miles Underneath the Sea) was attached to it, but Tanaka knew that was a non-starter.
One day a friend told Tanaka about an overweight, lumbering press agent working in Toho's publicity department. The man was so immense that some of the staff nicknamed him "Gojira"--a word formed by combining the Japanese words for gorilla (gorira) and whale (kujira). Tanaka loved the name, and after considering it for a few days, he decided to use it for his monster.
Thus, Gojira was born."
Hypershell (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Trimming the fat

The "Incarnations" section is needlessly bloated and simply reiterates the plot of each and every Godzilla movie instead of discussing the character.

I reduced the Heisei section first as it was the longest. I'd really appreciate some help in trimming the fat off the rest of this section as well. As it stands, Godzilla's article is very, very "In-Universe", very TL;DR and would probably bore anybody but a hardcore Godzilla fan to tears. Let's see if we can give it some Real World context so that the Average Joe who happens to look up "Godzilla" won't be instantly turned off by the length and make this article actually useful.

And remember, citations are a wikipedian's best friend :D

K00bine (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Major Rewrite

I'm gonna do a rewrite of the entire article. The article is too in-universe and needs a major cleanup. If anyone has any complaints or objections, please respond. — Enter Movie (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way you can find to include a list of the Godzilla movies in your rewrite? maybe include how many there are and titles, years, etc.? or maybe that should be a different page? i don't think it needs to be massively in depth, i just think it needs to be there. or if not and we want to keep this focused on the character itself, maybe there should be a page that focuses on the original movie? Killemall22 (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we respond with praise and suggestions? ;) I like the sleeker format, but agree that there needs to be a more extensive film section. He is a major movie star, after all!! Pairadox (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry~! i forgot to say thank you for working on this and doing such it good job, it was a very long article. and yes it is just a suggestion. thank you again!Killemall22 (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm working on the film section, but it's not gonna be in-depth or else it would be in-universe. You guys can help if you want, but be sure to make it short. Here are examples of good character pages: Michael Myers (Halloween) and Jason Voorhees. — Enter Movie (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I like that the article has been reduced in size. However, I think it *does* need a bit more "in-universe" content, and to describe Godzilla as a character; his role in the films, his special abilities, and so on, just summarised and made blatantly clear that he's fictional. The brief summary of his powers that was in the previous article would be a nice re-addition, I think, and maybe a short section explaining that he has had multiple incarnations over the years, but not going into gratuitous detail about them.

K00bine (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. It can be in-universe, but the majority of the article can't be in-universe. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). — Enter Movie (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope your edits stick. Back when I tried this it just got out of hand and people just started to reedit everything back in. DyslexicDan (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Godzilla how Japan thought of America after WWII

It came out after WWII and destroys cities.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.39.125 (talk)

Interesting point but any addition of this would need reliable sources to corroborate this view. Zarcadia (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This article needs improvement.

Seriously, its really important, we need to get it to Good Article status atleast, people contribute! I want to see it become featured! JTBX (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh... you know you're making the article in-universe? The "in popular culture" section doesn't need to be in the article 'cause it already has it's own page, there's already a Godzilla video games article, and the "incarnations" section is the one that makes this article mainly in-universe. See Michael Myers (Halloween), Jason Voorhees, and Predator (alien); they are really good examples on how character pages should be. I'm currently trying to work on the article. — Enter Movie (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

But they deserve relevant mentions. JTBX (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a fan site. Those inclusions did not meet Wikipedia's quality standards and manual of style. If you want it to be a Good Article, then you can't have it in-universe. -- 151.213.187.251 (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should lend the discussion of Godzilla's incarnations to its own article, and include a summary in the main Godzilla article explaining that the character has been tweaked and reinvented over the years?

K00bine (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The incarnations can possibly fit into the "concept and creation" section if it's apporpriate, but I don't know. — Enter Movie (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Giving different Godzilla versions its own page seems too long, just average out the appearance over the years instead of movie-to-movie.

godzilla898 (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

There are numerous cases of vandalism being reverted on this article, more than a few of them bye a certain Smokeknight09 and other IP adresses which I suspect might be the same person. See the article edit history for more detials. Is there anything we can do about this? Maybe block the user? I mean I don't think locking or semi-locking the page would be good seeing as how this page is under going good construction. Yoshi thomas (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Putting it in semi-lock seems good to me. — Enter Movie (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about me, I only did the SSBB joke once, so the other stuff wasn't me. I am NOT this SmokeKnight guy, trust me. I'm not doing anymore jokes, but I AM trying my best to add to articles what I feel is neccessary (The Godzilla in SSBB joke not included). (66.214.8.7 (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

Also Known As?

It is stated Godzilla is "also known as The King of the Monsters and Gigantis, the Fire Monster." As the introductory sentence to the entire article, these two pieces of information are so insignificant, they don't warrant mention in the very beginning. The nickname "King of the Monsters" is (correct me if I'm wrong) a slogan given for the original American release probably by a bunch of marketing guys. Since then it has grown into a term of endearment but nobody regularly uses the phrase interchangeably in formal writing with the name "Godzilla." Likewise, Godzilla is never ever ever called Gigantis (Fire Monster or not) outside of the context of the original American version of Godzilla Raids Again. Even modern day viewers refer to it as a "Godzilla movie" featuring Godzilla. According the the movie's Wikipedia article, Toho even had the rerelease titled as Godzilla instead of Gigantis. As such, the two terms above should hold their current place of prominence and be relegated to the article's body (especially "Gigantis"). Does anyone agree? --Blackbox77 (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I'll agree. These are a movie subtitle (for the US re-edit of the first Godzilla movie) and the US release title of Godzilla Raids Again. The first Godzilla movie I saw was "Gigantis" on original release. But these are movie titles, not alternate names for our misunderstood friend.Naaman Brown (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Cameo Appearence"

This article is for the *canon* appearences of Godzilla in official Godzilla media. His five second cameo in Sunset on 3rd Street 2 does not warrant a mention here. That sort of thing belongs in the Godzilla in popular culture article.

K00bine (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Godzilla Task Force

I think there should be a Godzilla Task Force if there isn't one already. I couldn't find one, so I proposed it here [1]. Please support! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderTG (talk • contribs) 19:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

fixing?

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2008)

This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.

   * It resembles a fan site. Tagged since January 2009.
   * It describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style that may require cleanup. Tagged since January 2009.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Real ultimate life hulk! (talk • contribs) 07:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 

Content badly needed.

I believe that this article needs content in general. And by that, content that supplements the information already there. Most of the old stuff that I just got rid of was a bunch of summaries about a few of the different movies, and that's just unnecessary here. What really needs to be done is explain what movies were significant and why, where Godzilla has appeared in pop culture, and what makes him popular in general. Any work on that front would go a long way to making this article a real good one. ~Mecha DarkWarrior 05:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

category list

The category list for Godzilla is fairly comprehensive but some idiot keeps taking out Godzilla from the kaiju category. For those who don't know, kaiju is a Japanese term for monster and it is used to describe fictional Japanese monsters (like the ones you see in Godzilla movies). I think you should keep that category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.28.138 (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

???

Does eny one know about a new godzilla movie coming out 2012? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.212.2 (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Yes TOHO Kingdom comfirmed that they will be making one sometime during 2012-2014. Also the movie will be called Godzilla 3D to the max. And he will fight a monster named Deathla wich is a Hedorah that eats plants and is made of plants. They have already made a cover of the movie. --GZ411 (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This Reboot Business

I'm the one who started the reboot section, so I think its good to have a discussion here. Obviously its so far just a rumour, so anything you hear about the project should be taken with a grain of salt, as should what you write on the article. My biggest question is to whoever added the part about the release date. I'm concerned about it both in regards to the credibility of the article, and because of the fact that I'm a godzilla fan and find this news interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubber24 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing information on the Matthew Broderick version

While I agree that this movie did not depict the "real" Godzilla, it should still be discussed for encyclopedic reasons. 88.77.152.227 (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Already there. See Godzilla#Heisei_series. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Should Zilla be merged into this page?

Discuss here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zilla

==shoudl this p

No. They are completely seperate monsters and therefore their articles should be kept seperate. We may as well just create a List of Godzilla monsters page and merge them all. 75.157.115.154 (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Godzilla major foes Gigan? Really?

I can see his foes being MechaGodzilla and GHidora... But Gigan? As far as personality, Gigan was a cheap shot backstabber and only a real coward. He really wasn't that strong. Are we "just" considering the new final wars? I think this needs to be straighten out. Gigan was never as close to killing Godzilla compared to mechagodzilla or as meancing as King ghidora —Preceding unsigned comment added by00:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

1977 film

What is this 1977 film? --Mystère Martin (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Its an edited version of Godzilla, King of the Monsters! that was released for the Italian market. Read about it here

http://www.scifijapan.com/articles/2009/05/31/talking-cozzilla-an-interview-with-italian-godzilla-director-luigi-cozzi/

Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --Mystère Martin (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Gender of Godzilla: he or she?

Article uses "he". http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_godzilla_a_male_or_female incoherently rambles that it lays eggs. Just curious, I don't remember movie that well, and questions about Godzilla gender was asked between friends. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.10.233 (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Godzilla is what they call a Hermaphrodite. That is, both male and female. Jdaniels15 (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's quite male. The creature in the American remake was a hermaphrodite. A lot of the misconception stems from the "Son of Godzilla," but believe me, that "son" is an honary. "Minya" or "Minilla" as the little Godzilla is called was actually laid by another member of Godzilla's species. Remember that Godzilla wasn't a monster reawoken by an atomic bomb, it was a part of an on-going species of "Godzillasaurus," as hinted at by: 1)The existence of a second Godzilla in "Godzilla Raids Again", and 2)That the Godzillasaurus was still awake and actively prowling Lagos Island when seen in "Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah." It's far more likely that in both "Son of Godzilla" and "Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla 2" that both little Godzilla eggs were laid by a member of Godzilla's species before being irradiated later on. In "Son of Godzilla" Minya's egg is exposed to a nuclear bomb used in a whether experiment, and in "Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla 2," the egg was found in an island used as a toxic dump site. Godzilla would then play the roll of adoptive father when at last the eggs hatch. Admittedly, it can be argued that Godzilla laid the egg himself in both series, but it seems unlikely given that he had to be "called" by the egg once it was active. However, Toho's been adament that Godzilla remain male, and the ambiguity was definitely employed as to not compromise that. But honestly, saying that Godzilla is female because of the existence of a "Son of Godzilla" would be like saying Kong had to have been female for there to have been a "Son of Kong." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.210.183 (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought Godzilla was a girl too. --24.177.0.156 (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

this padge

i cant believe that they actually have a page for Godzilla but i was even more surprised on how much commenting was done on the discussion page!--zed127 high school student 18:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zed127 (talk • contribs)

Idea

A category for fictional Hollywood Walk of Fame honorees? 71.59.165.129 (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Bambi

Anyone able to find "Bambi Vs. Godzilla"? It's an excellent short made by a small production group. Definately worth adding if it can be done properly. I don't have the wiki-skills to do so. - TheBill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.162.74 (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I would watch that!--24.177.0.156 (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Tidying up original closure which read "(Non-admin closure)  Not done, per consensus.That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 13:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)". Jenks24 (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

---

• Godzilla → Godzilla (character)
• Godzilla (franchise) → Godzilla

– Much duplicated information on the two items - intention would be to strip most media information from the "character" article and make it purely about the character, and move the "franchise" article to the main article name per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Open to other suggestions, but think we need to rationalise these two pages to avoid duplication of information. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think leave Godzilla (franchise) and move Godzilla → Godzilla (character), make Godzilla disambiguation. That would make it clear exactly what was supposed to go on which page. There are plenty of "franchise" articles. (Terminator (franchise), Alien (franchise), Predator (franchise), etc.) Also, it's not obvious to me that the franchise is the "primary topic". Two movies, the franchise, the monster itself all have a claim. Barsoomian (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• A couple of questions First, is there a reason for having two articles? Given the duplication, neither seems so incredibly long that a merger would be out of order. Second, what's the evidence that the film franchise is far and away more of a primary topic than the creature itself? Article traffic for 2010, for example, has Godzilla at 1,115,596] visits, but the franchise at 195,917 visits.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Because there is so much duplicated material, Godzilla is practically about the franchise anyway! That could explain the stats, but I'm not against a merger. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think that the character is the primary topic. Certainly the term exists and was invented because of the character and common usage of Godzilla is referring to the character, not the film series or any one film. Just moving the articles will not solve the duplication, either. Let's just work on resolving what issues you have with the articles. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right - because of all the film information on the Godzilla article, I may have been misguided. Maybe a merge is the best option? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• • While considering a merger, I noticed this article Powers and abilities of Godzilla: how the hell is that a separate article? Surely that should be merged into this one on the character. And considerably boiled down in the process. Barsoomian (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That should definitely be merged to the character page, or the merged page if that's what happens. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think whoever did it, was trying to keep the main Godzilla article size down and I guess, limit duplication. I am concerned that if you merged the Powers and Abilities text into the main, that it would make it large. I don't know if it is appropriate or not to have a separate article according to guidelines. It would certainly be a big part of any Godzilla (character) article. Would it be preferable to rename that article to Godzilla (character), move more content to that article. Can we agree to move 'The men in the suit' section to the franchise article? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I just moved "The men in the suit" to this article. The "actors" were already listed here. It never fitted in to the franchise article. If anywhere, it would be part of the "Filmography" table, but there really isn't room for another column. And I suspect the motive in splitting off the "Powers" article was to allow it to be expanded out of any oversight, it's pretty much 100% original research by the look of it. Barsoomian (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Powers and Abilities is based on a single page in a single source. Apparently. There's a lot of cruft that could be cut there.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So you think keep two pages - one concentrating on the character, including what is salvagable from the powers and abilities, and removing all the film stuff at Godzilla (character), and one concentrating on the films, books and comics, etc? (presumably at Godzilla (franchise)) - What should we have at Godzilla? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, we could follow the James Bond series layout. Would that be too much duplication? i.e. your original objection? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose the character is the primary usage. The franchise information should be better segregated into the franchise article. Godzilla appears in alot of things outside of the franchise, and even more in popular culture, such as use in the original Sim City. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose No reason artificially to hunt down a "primary topic" here. That is not useful to readers. I would support qualifiers for both articles. Noetica^Tea? 03:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

semi-lock?

Just reverted vandalism by an IP, and noted that this has happened several times before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfPolySci45 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps semi-lock on the Godzilla (franchise)? Well since it's not protected while Godzilla is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.133.105 (talk), 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Roar

Article currently [2] reads in part Film directors always use the same sound recording, but in more recent years variations on the sound have been made to express Godzilla’s emotions. That seems to be a contradiction... what is the intended meaning? Do we have a source? Andrewa (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge with American Godzilla

As per discussion on that article's talk page. Opinion on a previous RM discussion trending toward merge with this article. ToFeignClef (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The name "American Godzilla" has never been used in an official capacity and the character from the 1998 film has been retconned into being named "Zilla". Though Toho continues to use the name "Godzilla" for the character on products that predate the name change, such as the 1998 film and its de-facto sequel, Godzilla: The Series, Toho has tradmarked the name and the design for Zilla and supported the name change in subsequent products, such Godzilla: Final Wars and the IDW Godzilla comics. "American Godzilla" should not be merged with Godzilla, instead it should redirect to Zilla. Wikipedia should use the character's most recently trademarked official english name.

"Attributes"

This section was a gigantic, overwrought blob of unsourced claims of interest only to Godzilla fans. I took the liberty of paring it down to a more generalised overview and added citations that will hopefully be more useful to the layman. Much of this content has been replicated at the Wikia Godzilla wiki anyway, so ultimately nothing has been really lost.

Fancruft

While reverting a recent edit to removal a large section of material, I reverted , not because the material clearly belongs, but because I don't think it is good practice to make this large a change without discussion. I have no interest in the subject matter, so do not plan to contribute much, but after a brief glance, it is largely unsourced, and does sound like fancruft. Can we have some discussion to determine whether excision is the best course, or if any of the material could be rescued with sources or rewrites?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The person adding it has been doing it using different IP addresses over the past couple of days. [3] [4]. It gets reverted and then he comes back again and does it again. The new stuff isn't references and the edit actually removes references and citation needed templates and adds things that just aren't true. Since this guy really wants Godzilla to be labeled a "Fictional mutant dinosaur" he removes references that he is a sea monster loosely based on a dinosaur. Helpsome (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether Godzilla is a "sea monster" or "Fictional mutant dinosaur" is a discussion for this page, but not obviously vandalism. Frankly, I was surprised at "sea monster", as my only (limited, to be sure) impression was a creature on land. "Fictional" is clearly correct, and apparently, so is mutant, although dinosaur sounds wrong. However, I am now engaging in the debate which isn't the point, except to demonstrate that one cannot characterize an arguably correct labeling as vandalism.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

His opinion isn't vandalism but I think removing references he disagrees with only to replace it with unreferenced opinion might be. Helpsome (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not arguing in support of the edits. I just don't think they are so obviously vandalism that the article deserves protection. I left a note on the IP's talk page. Not sure whether it is will but the right thing to do is to try to communicate, rather than to try to shut someone out.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Wether you want to add all the unnecessary and bloated fannish text back (such as overly excessive details about Godzilla's "roar" and "intelligence" which only appeals to hardcore fans and would bore the average reader to tears) is one thing, but the bulk of what I added back to the article with my latest edit was not only better written than the previous text but contained numerous citations and didn't contain such silliness as Godzilla being referred to as a "scary" monster in the opening paragraph.Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

So you missed the point.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you enlighten me then if I'm missing the point? I always thought the wikipedia was about having articles that are cited and are written the best way possible. Removing a childish phrase like calling Godzilla "scary" from the main article and replacing poorly written text with better written and cited text seems to be what the wikipedia is all about. Is it not?Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I originally thought that the material had been in the article for some time, but now see that it was a recent addition. That said, when someone puts that much work into material, even if not suitable, it would be polite to let the contributor know why the material is not appropriate. I merely suggested that someone open a discussion on the talk page. That didn't happen. I consider that rude, which is not contrary to policy, so carry on.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW some anonymous ISP number went and undid my revision. That wasn't you now was it, because it seems pretty convenient in terms of its timing.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

As was previously mentioned on this talk page, the "attributes" section that this anonymous IP is attempting to restore is avaliable on the Wikia Godzilla wiki, so nothing is lost by removing it. It was rewritten as a "Character Design and Development" section to be more consise, better sourced and less fannish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.70.239 (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"Dinosaur"

There have been persistant attempts recently to list Godzilla as a mutant dinosaur. While this is technically correct, it does not apply to all incarnations of the character, which has been given many different origin stories over the years.

1. The original Godzilla from the Showa series is described as a sort of prehistoric aquatic reptile that was in the process of evolving to live on land; an amphibious transitional form between aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates, NOT a dinosaur.

2. The Heisei Godzilla from the 90s is identified as a "Godzillasaurus". However, it is not explicitly identified as a dinosaur in the literal scientific sense; IIRC the Japanese films use the word "Kyoryu", which is colloquial term that literally means "fearsome dragon" and is applied to prehistoric creatures in general, eg: Kyōryū Sentai Zyuranger.

3. The American Godzilla is a mutated iguana.

4. The various Millennium Godzillas share the same origin story as the original, as they are all direct sequels to the original film. The Marvel Godzilla comic also uses this origin story.

So only one incarnation of Godzilla has been identified as a dinosaur, and only in the layman sense that one would also apply to a plesiosaur or a pterosaur. The creators were only loosely inspired by dinosaurs when they were designing him; according to Tomoyuki Tanaka, he's a monster first and foremost. Identifying Godzilla as a "Sea Monster" is not only factually correct (he's a monster that lives in the sea, QED) but it's broad terminology that can be applied to all incarnations of the character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.70.239 (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally I would put "giant irradiated reptile" or "giant mutated reptile". The whole "sea monster" description might confuse the average reader since the average person perceives Godzilla as a "giant lizard". When people think of sea monsters they tend to think of monsters that are strictly marine based such as Sea Serpents or the Kraken. That of course is not the case with Godzilla who spends more time on land, in cities, or even on islands then he does underwater.Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That's debatable. In the original film Godzilla was explicitly described as a marine reptile who originally lived in a deep sea trench; he only came on land to attack cities and returned to the sea when he was finished. The first costume even had webbed hands and feet. He leaned towards terrestrial life when he found a home on monster island in the late Showa era, but in most of the early Showa, Heisei and Millennium films he spends most of his life in the sea.

It's even debatable whether or not he's a mutant. Dr. Yamane hypothesised there could be an entire species of Godzillas, and was proven correct when a second (and a third - Minilla) were discovered. Granted, all Godzillas are shown to be radioactive; maybe they all came from the same trench somehow, but I'm digressing, that's beyond the scope of this article.

Godzilla is certainly amphibious, but given that he's a monster who originates from the sea and spends much of his time there, "sea monster" is a fitting (and more importantly, a broadly encompassing and unbiased) discription. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.70.239 (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

But that is the whole point. Yamane specifically states that he is a marine reptile in the original film. And when they were debating over how to create Godzilla's roar, in the book Gojira Eiga 40-Nenshi, Gojira Deizu (Godzilla Days: 40 years of Godzilla Movies) [and this is also mentioned in Ryfle's book Japanese Favorite Mon-star, page 32], its stated that the original idea was to not give Godzilla a roar at all since reptiles do not have vocal cords. Honda wanted a roar for the monster and argued for the rationale (actual quote here), Godzilla underwent some mutation. He is beyond our imagination.

Its also pretty obvious he is a mutant. The radiation not only scarred his body and made him radioactive, but gave him the ability to spew radioactive fire. Since he was affected or changed by the atomic bomb testing, that literally makes him mutant. So here you have a Japanese source referring to Godzilla as a reptile and Honda even quoting how he's a mutant. This should take precedence over anyone's opinion to the contrary.Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was skeptical of the claim because mutants are unique by definition, while the original film seemed to imply that Godzilla was not unique had merely been released and enraged by the bomb and absorbed the radiation. But the Japanese version of King Kong vs. Godzilla calls him a mutant, so that is indeed correct.

At no point did I imply that Godzilla wasn't a reptile. The article describes him as reptilian multiple times. However, it's worth noting that many Godzilla designs incorporate mammalian features, such as the dog-like muzzle on the Heisei costume. (Whoever told Honda that reptiles can't roar is absolutely wrong; alligators can roar, but that's neither here nor there.)

At any rate, whatever Godzilla may be, dinosaur, lizard, reptile, mutant or otherwise, he is a monster first and foremost. When Koichi Kawakita attempted to add more dinosaurian features to Godzilla's design in the 80s, Tomoyuki Tanaka barred him from doing so on the grounds that Godzilla is a monster, not a mere animal. And since the monster comes from the sea, "Sea Monster" is still a fitting (and more importantly, a broadly encompassing and unbiased) discription. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.70.239 (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Godzilla isn't a lizard, he's a dinosaur, but Zilla is a lizard. Godzilla's always been a dinosaur and Zilla's always been a lizard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.89.17 (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"Crocodile and Alligator"

Art director Akira Watanabe combined attributes and skin texture of a Tyrannosaurus, an Iguanodon, a Stegosaurus, a crocodile, and an alligator

First off, the reference doesn't even say that. Second, it's redundant. The Japanese don't distinguish between the two; they use the same word word (鰐 "Wani") for both alligators and crocodiles. Third, it's flat-out wrong. Godzilla's skin texture is inspired by keloid scars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.70.239 (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Gojira

The usage of Gojira is under discussion, see talk:Gojira#Requested move 2 -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

More "Dinosaur" nonsense

I get that Godzilla fans are hellbent on identifying Godzilla as a dinosaur after the whole iguana fiasco, but this origin story only applies to the Heisei incarnation. Recent edits have attempted to assert that the Showa Godzilla is a dinosaur/marine reptile hybrid, but this is not true. Here is a transcript of Dr. Yamane's explanation for Godzilla's origin in the original film, from Criterion's recent blu-ray release, which includes updated and improved subtitles:

"Approximately two million years ago, the brontosaurus and other dinosaurs were at their peak. Scientists call this the Jurassic period. It's believed that during the following geological period, the Cretaceous period, a rare intermediate organism was evolving from a marine reptile into a terrestrial animal. Following Odo island tradition, I propose for the time being that we call this creature Godzilla."

Whatever Godzilla may be, dinosaur, lizard, reptile, mutant, god or otherwise, he is a monster first and foremost, and since he is a monster that comes from the sea that occasionally comes ashore, "amphibious sea monster" is the most broadly encompassing and unbiased description for the character. This article is meant to be a general, encyclopedic overview for the layman, not to dwell over minutiae. That's what fansites like Wikizilla are for.

• I agree and disagree with you. Yes, Godzilla himself is a monster but what he was before his mutation is a different story. Godzilla himself is a mutation of a dinosaur, it doesn't apply only to the Heisei Godzilla, that's just the character he is - a mutated dinosaur. The Heisei films were the only parts of the franchise that thoroughly explained his origins. The Showa films (via Godzilla) barely explained his origins comprehensively and still, Dr. Yamane's explanation still proves that Godzilla was indeed a dinosaur prior. Like in the example you provided, he states that between the Cretaceous period, a new breed of animal was evolving. Now we can conclude that this was indeed a dinosaur-type creature born from land and sea dinosaurs. Regardless, Godzilla originated from the Prehistoric era, therefore, appropriately labeling as a dinosaur. Reptilian and amphibious creatures from that age were and are classified as dinosaurs and with Godzilla being both a reptilian and amphibious creature, it's correct to label him as a dinosaur, or in this case, a mutated dinosaur. Regardless, Godzilla's origins have NEVER been altered (not counting the 1998 abomination). It's always been a prehistoric dinosaur mutated into a monster. What else did he mutate from if not from dinosaur? Armegon (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• I go with the 'Wikipedia as a encyclopedia' concept which makes Godzilla a 'Fictional Monster'. Trying to derive any logic from loads of films/books/cartoons many of which disagree is pointless. There is no answer to the question 'what species is godzilla', it is a fictional monster so may as well be described as such. Mtpaley (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Godzilla is a fictional he, not a fictional "it". 493Titanollante (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Yamane's explanation still proves that Godzilla was indeed a dinosaur prior. Like in the example you provided, he states that between the Cretaceous period, a new breed of animal was evolving. Now we can conclude that this was indeed a dinosaur-type creature born from land and sea dinosaurs.

WP:Original Research. We can't speculate beyond what's presented in the original source. The original source says nothing about Godzilla being a literal dinosaur. If Godzilla were intended to be a dinosaur then the writers would have had Yamane just call it one instead of giving a complicated answer about it being some kind of transitional organism.

Regardless, Godzilla originated from the Prehistoric era, therefore, appropriately labeling as a dinosaur. Reptilian and amphibious creatures from that age were and are classified as dinosaurs and with Godzilla being both a reptilian and amphibious creature, it's correct to label him as a dinosaur, or in this case, a mutated dinosaur.

Not every prehistoric reptile was a dinosaur. Pterosaurs, Mosasaurs, Plesiosaurs and Pseudosuchians were not dinosaurs. Hell, there were even some pseudosuchians that superficially resembled theropod dinosaurs. Also, the original japanese version of Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah uses the word 恐竜 (Kyōryū). While often loosely translated as "dinosaur", its literal meaning is "fearsome dragon" and the Japanese use it as a colloquial term for prehistoric reptiles in general, including non-dinosaurian ones such as pterosaurs, plesiosaurs and dimetrodon.

What else did he mutate from if not from dinosaur?

The transitional organism that Yamane described it as? The obvious authorial intent here is to present Godzilla as something mysterious and unique.

EDIT: "Godzilla 1984" implies that Godzilla is related to birds, which might make the Heisei version a Capital D Literal Dinosaur. However, this explaination cannot be reconciled with Godzilla's origins in the Showa series, which the Heisei series is not canonical to. None of the Millennium films reference the Godzillasaurus angle either, and the writers of IDW's Godzilla comics were given an excplicit executive mandate to not explain the monsters' origins; they're to be kept mysterious. So it would appear we're back to square one: all Godzillas are sea monsters, but not all Godzillas are dinosaurs. Retroactively applying the "dinosaur" origin to the character in general rather than the Heisei version specifically is WP: Original Research.

There are loads of films/books/cartoons and probably video games each of which is free to specify a race and background for Godzilla or indeed any other fictional character. There is no way even in principle to say which of these is the (deliberately singular) definitive answer so surely the entire debate is pointless. There might be (and probably are) fan sites endlessly arguing the finer points of which sources are canon and how to reconcile the differences but ultimately this is never going to produce something of encyclopedic quality. We should just say fictional reptilian monster and leave it at that. If write a book saying that Godzilla is a alien from Mars should that change the description in the article? The wikipedia consensus needs to weed out pointless debates on issues that belong in fandom and just stick to the facts. Mtpaley (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• That's a pretty flawed analogy because if you did write a book claiming Godzilla is an alien, you would need to cite a significant source to support and prove your claim, which is something all non-fictional authors and biographers have done and why they're used as reliable references and sources in wikipedia. However, Godzilla being (or in this case, was) a dinosaur in general is not a fan speculation. It is indeed a fact because Toho went on to explain in the heisei films that prior to his mutation, Godzilla belonged to a race of fictional dinosaurs called Godzillasaurus. Yes, the Showa films don't necessarily refer to him as a (mutated) dinosaur but you are forgetting that Toho themselves have redefined Godzilla's origins. This is what we call a Retcon. The Japanese language version of Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack even references Godzilla as a prehistoric dinosaur (the scene were Yuri is reviewing her interview with the old man), so it just doesn't apply only to the heisei films! Additionally, the heisei films are also TIED to the 1954 film, via The Return of Godzilla. So if Godzilla "was not" a dinosaur, then why would the heisei films like The Return of Godzilla, Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah, and Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla II say otherwise, all who are which a part of a continuity connected to Godzilla '54, let me remind you. This is further evidence of the Retcon. Additionally, even if the Japanese word Kyōryū is a loose term, it's still used to identify dinosaurs nonetheless! Like the word Kaiju which literally translates into "strange beast" but is globally used to identify monsters or giant monsters (such as Godzilla), via Pacific Rim. Not keeping the "mutated dinosaur" part in the species section of the infobox would seem contradicting of the purpose of wikipedia, which is to provide proven, reliable facts. And that fact has been proven in The Return of Godzilla, Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah, Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla II, and Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack. To which again is called a Retcon. Armegon (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Armegon here. The Heisei era isn't just an era that Toho pulled out of nowhere and doesn't have ANY canonity with the Showa era, the film The Return of Godzilla is a direct sequel to the original Godzilla, King of The Monsters, and since it references events before 1954 film. The Godzillasaurus didn't appear like years after the events of 1954, it happened before, so yes, Godzilla is a dinosaur. 493Titanollante (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

WP: Original Research. We can't speculate beyond what's written. Toho has never stated that the origins in the Heisei films retroactively apply to all the Godzilla movies; that's just extrapolation. The Japanese films use the word Godzilla kyōryū, which is not specific, and the original film goes out of its way to explain Godzilla as being something unique. Even The Return of Godzilla is ambiguous on the matter; he's not explicitly defined as a theropod dinosaur, they simply imply he's related to birds, which could hypothetically encompass the entire clade archosauria, of which birds are a part. Shogo Tomiyama stated in an interview that portraying Godzilla as an animal in the American film had been a mistake, because it demystified the character; the Heisei series made the same mistake, going into excessive detail about Godzilla's origins, anatomy and life cycle. If anything, Shogo Tomiyama's desire to portray Godzilla as something aberrant and the executive mandate given by Toho to IDW to keep the monsters' origins mysterious suggest that the Godzillasaurus origin has been retconned; it applies only to the Heisei series. All Godzillas are sea monsters, but not all Godzillas are dinosaurs.

However, all this nitpicking over canon and authorial intent is pointless anyway. Mtpaley is correct. Wikipedia has strict rules for writing about fiction. One of these rules is that the subject should be approached from a real world perspective. Including a line in an infobox that identifies his "species" as though he were a real organism is WP:fancruft, especially considering that it's placed above relavent, real world information such as its creator and the actors who played it. These lines in the "Character overview and development" section already define what Godzilla is in a way that is appropriate for the tone and style of Wikipedia:

"Inspired by the fictional Rhedosaurus created by animator Ray Harryhausen for the film The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms[Meet Godzilla, Robert Greenberger, 2005 - page 15], Godzilla's iconic character design was conceived as that of an amphibious reptilian monster based around the loose concept of a dinosaur [Godzilla First, 1954 ~ 1955, Osamu Kishikawa, 1994] with an erect standing posture, scaly skin, an anthropomorphic torso with muscular arms, spikes on its back and tail, and a furrowed brow.[5] Art director Akira Watanabe combined attributes of a Tyrannosaurus, an Iguanodon, a Stegosaurus and an alligator [6] to form a sort of blended chimera, inspired by illustrations from an issue of Life magazine. [William M. Tsutsui (2003). Godzilla on My Mind: Fifty Years of the King of Monsters. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 23.]"

"Within the context of the films, Godzilla's exact origins vary, but it is generally depicted as an enormous, violent, prehistoric sea monster awakened and empowered by nuclear radiation.[7]

The "species" designation for this and all the other Toho kaiju articles on Wikipedia should be removed outright, since they're against the rules and do nothing but invite edit warring. So should the height, weight and special ability statistics as well; those should be explained in a real world context within the "Character overview and development" section.

• How is this "nitpicking" pointless? This is a TALK PAGE, we are discussing it! Additionally, YOU started this discussion and now you're ending it because there are facts provided that you don't agree with. A consensus must be reached in order to remove the species section (and all others that were deleted) upon which, no consensus has been established. You cannot remove these sections before we have reached a compromise. To the unsigned contributor, what you are doing is called Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Just because there's something you don't agree with doesn't mean you have the right to remove it. Especially when a compromise or consensus that has yet to be reached! I suggest the species section be reinstated. Armegon (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The Godzilla franchise is a multiverse with many different continuities, and the Godzilla character has multiple origin stories with irreconcilable contradictions (for example, Heisei Ghidorah's origins are tied to the Godzillasaurus. If the time travel events from Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah that happened before the events of the 1954 Godzilla film retroactively apply to the original film and every sequel to it, then why does Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All Out Attack present Ghidorah as an immature Orochi instead of a mutant Dorat?) The Heisei Godzilla is just one out of at least nine incarnations of the character, and a general overview of the character such as this Wikipedia article should not show an undue bias towards any specific incarnation.

I am conceding that this debate is pointless because Mtpaley is correct in pointing out that Godzilla isn't real. Providing in-universe species and statistics fields for a fictional sea monster is against Wikipedia's rules, as per WP:WAF, especially if said field is going to extrapolate on ambiguous statements from primary sources. Not all edits require concensus, and this is a relatively insignificant one that simply removes some infobox fields that shouldn't have been there to start with, and relocates the information to a section where it can be given real world context.

Pikachu is nominated as a "good article" and is a stellar example on how to write about fictional monsters on Wikipedia. Note that the infobox does not contain in-universe biographical information such as its species or stats; it contains a list of creators, voice actors and other facts that define it as a fictional character, and the main body of text identifies it as a "Mouse Pokémon" and a "mouse-like creature" instead of literally calling it a mouse. Nor does it give undue weight to particular incarnations, such as favouring the anime over the video games. The vast majority of Wikipedia's Toho kaiju articles need to be rewritten in accordance to the site's standards of quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.144.216 (talk)

Comment: Treating Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction as a set of official rules violates IAR especially as the MoS page states that it is a "guideline" and not "policy". I'm not certain that Pikachu would be a stellar model for the Godzilla page, because the subject, lore and notability of that lore are much less prominent for Pikachu than for the latter. I think Batman (listed as an exemplar on MoS/Fiction) is closer. If the attributes and details of Godzilla's appearance and fictional nature are themselves WP:notable then they should be cited as such, and possibly included. Absence an assertion of notability, it would seem to fall back on the MoS, that cautions against inclusion.--R.S. Peale (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

And please don't forget to sign your Talk page posts.--R.S. Peale (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:WAF isn't set in stone, true, but it sets the standard for quality when it comes to writing about fictional characters on Wikipedia. The new Godzilla article has been the subject of repeated vandalism, and anonymous IPs have been reverting it to the older version despite the new one better following WP:WAF, being more useful to non-fans and containing more citations.

Neither is an exact analogue, but Pikachu feels like a better model for the Godzilla article to work off of because it has more in common with Godzilla than Batman does. He's a human character from a different culture and genre, it seems most prudent to base Godzilla's article on the example set by another iconic Japanese monster character (from a franchise that's heavily inspired by Tokusatsu at that.)

99.242.144.216 (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Godzilla's been identified as a number of things, true; off the top of my head I can remember him being called a dinosaur, a sea monster, a kaiju and other such classifications; though the closest we have to canon (the Heisei movies) says he's a Godzillasaurus, which is essentially a retro-Tyrannosaurus.

That being said, his exact classification is still very ambiguous; I'd hazard to say "saurian kaiju of indeterminate affinities" is probably the safest option to go for, "archosaurian kaiju of indeterminate affinities" if we want to be daring.

And Pikachu, despite being a Japanese creation, probably isn't the best idea for this article. Something like Sonic's article might work somewhat better, since they're both Japanese fictional characters with superhuman abilities (Sonic has superhuman speed, Godzilla has superhuman regenerative abilities). Pikachu, despite it's massive popularity, isn't really a character per se, more a species of fictional electric rats that has notable individuals.

Actually, the Simba article has a good infobox, too, maybe that could work:

Might need a bit of tweaking, of course, but it looks decent, as a start for now. I'm not as good at infoboxes as I am at taxoboxes, though, so it's a bit barebones, as it were. If anybody wants to try the Sonic article's infobox, go right ahead. :P Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog (character) might not be a good model to work off of, if only because the article doesn't have any noteworthy credentials. It hasn't been nominated as a "good article" and it's rated as B-C class by various wiki projects, indicating that it's decent, but not good. Godzilla is already rated as B-C class, so basing it off Sonic's won't improve the article.

"Saurian kaiju of indeterminate affinities" is quite a mouthful, and assumes the average reader the article even knows what a "kaiju" is. Outside of Japan and giant monster fandom, "kaiju" is an obscure term. "Sea monster" works just fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.100.15 (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinking, my dear IP. It'd look more like "saurian kaiju of indeterminate affinities". "Kaiju" isn't really an obscure term, either. Plenty of people use the term, and it's more prevalant in literature then "sea monster" (which is incredibly generic; and not many people in the films call Godzilla a "sea monster", either. The closest to that I've seen is the original film calling him "a transitional form between land and sea dinosaurs.")

On the argument of Godzilla being a dinosaur or not: The 1985 film (a sequel to the 1954 film, mind you) says he's related to birds. This narrow us down to two options; either Godzilla's an irridated dinosaurian or an irridated crocodylomorph. The fact that Godzilla VS King Ghidorah specifically states his species as "Godzillasaurus", as well as showing said species being a theropod (albeit a retrosaurian theropod); and this takes place before the events of the original film is essentially confirmation that Godzilla is a dinosaur (this means said origin also applies retroactively to the Showa Godzillas and thus all Millenium Godzillas are also irridated dinosaurs, since every Showa-era film is tied to each other, and thus the original 1954 film, in some way, and every Millenium-era film is tied to the 1954 film, which has a sequel in the 1985 film, which says Godzilla's related to birds). But that's just me. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This has already been brought up. The Showa, Heisei and various Millennium storylines have irreconcilable contradictions. Though each one includes the 1954 film in its "canon", each belongs to its own self-contained continuity. The time travel events in Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah are only canonical to the Heisei continuity. They can't apply to the rest of the films: is King Ghidorah an alien, a mutant dorat, or an orochi? Showa, Heisei and GMK all disagree. It's beyond the scope of Wikipedia to speculate beyond the fiction or treat the subject from an "In-Universe" perspective. According to WP:WAF:

Features often seen in an inappropriate, in-universe perspective include:

• Description of fictional places written like a geographical account; the same principles apply as for fictional characters
• Attempting to reconcile contradictions or bridge gaps in the narrative, rather than simply reporting them as such

Attempting to classify Godzilla as though it were a real organism, and making assumptions about how events in one continuity "retroactively" apply to another is Original Research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.100.15 (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Godzilla vs King Ghidorah is the only insight we've gotten to Godzilla's history pre-mutation; the Godzillasaurus scenes are placed before Godzilla's mutation, and thus, before the events of Gojira. No other movie potrays Godzilla as anything other than a dinosaur. No other movies since have outright refuted the idea posited in GvKG; the only exception being Emmerich's disastrous remake making Godzilla into an iguana. Titanollante's explanation also fits here; Return of Godzilla is a sequel to Gojira, and after Return of Godzilla comes Godzilla vs Biollante and Godzilla VS King Ghidorah, the latter of those two explaining Godzilla's origins and creating a Stable Time Loop in the process. Thus, if GvKG is connected to Gojira, and no other films seem to refute or contradict the origins posited in GvKG (not even GMK; the Godzilla there is just Godzilla possesed by the revenge-seeking lost souls of WWII), then I can obviously conclude that the origin story posited in GvKG is the safest option to choose; since it's already canonical to the 1954 film (and thus could be a reasonable explanation for every Godzilla, and makes more sense canonically) rather then just calling him a "sea monster" (which, if I'm recalling right, has rarely (if ever) happened). He's been reffered to as a dinosaur in King Kong VS. Godzilla too, IIRC, but I haven't gotten around to re-watching that film yet. The IDW Godzilla may be the monkey wrench in my plans; if the Godzillasaurus origin is retconned; then my whole argument is dead before it even got off the ground. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

IDW's "Kingdom of Monsters" actually does give Godzilla a completely new origin story. He just shows up one day, goes on a rampage, the military drops a nuke on him but ends up mutating him instead, giving him the ability to use his atomic breath; he looks the same before and after his mutation. There's no mention of the Godzillasaurus; it's established in the comic that nobody has seen anything like him before, and nobody knows where he came from.

According to Heisei FX director Koichi Kawakita, transformation is a thematic element he worked into the Heisei series to give it a unique identity; the Godzillasaurus (and the Dorats) are just building on that trend. This is all the more reason to treat it (and the Showa series, and the various Millennium films) as a self-contained continuity. It makes fewer assumptions about the narrative, which is better for Wikipedia and its stance against Original Research.

And of course, there's still the King Ghidorah problem. Ghidorah's origin is inexorably tied to Godzilla's in that film. However, GMK portrays him as a legendary guardian of Japan that's already existed for thousands of years, and the Showa series portray him as a space monster used as a weapon of various malevolent alien races. I find it really strange that fans accept the Godzillasaurus origin as a universal retcon yet dismiss the Dorats as being a ridiculous oddity of the Heisei series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.100.15 (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Note, however, that GMK is also part of the Millenium series; infamous for being near-constant rebooting (with the exception of Tokyo S.O.S). Showa Ghidorah, though, has almost no origin story whatsoever; he just sort of appears and starts destroying things; it's never stated how he came to be; just that he is and enjoys devastating planets. Regarding the Dorats; I could see them being the origin of Showa Ghidorah, too; I'm just not sure how the Dorats would fit into the plot, theough; obviously in the Heisei continuity they're genetically-engineered pets, but would many of the alien races we see need pets? I guess some might, but eh. The Dorats probably could fit into Showa continuity if you find a reasonable-enough explanation for them to be in the Showa continuity. I'll just offer up something to try and end this before it might become a ; Godzilla's design is primarilly inspired by dinosaurs (specifically, retro!Tyrannosaurus, Stegosaurus and Iguanodon); so a possible compromise to this end is to simply list his design influence being dinosaurs, and leave it at that. How would that sound? Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The article already mentions the dinosaur design influence, under "Character overview and development". It also mentions that its "exact origins vary", a compromise between the various conflicting origin stories for Godzilla. The article is carefully worded to paint the subject in broad strokes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.100.15 (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Height of original Godzilla

The Official Godzilla Compendium lists the original Godzilla's and the Showa Godzilla's heights as being 60 m rather than 50 m. 207.216.218.214 (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Then The Official Godzilla Compendium is wrong: Dr. Yamane describes Godzilla as being 165 feet tall in the original film. 165 feet is 50 meters. (There seems to be a typo in the description, it says 164 feet where it should say 165.)

The various Millennium Godzillas are 55 meters tall, except for in Godzilla: Final Wars, where he is 100 meters tall. Godzilla is 60 meters tall in Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All Out Attack, and the Heisei-era Godzilla grew from 80 meters to 100 meters. The Hanna Barbara Godzilla is "30 stories high", which is 90 meters. So the statement that Godzilla's height varies from 50-100 meters is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.144.216 (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The Official Godzilla Compendium is so full of errors its not even funny. The book was written by 2 Godzilla fans in North America and had nothing to do with anyone from Toho. The only reason its deemed "official" is because of a pre-existing license between Random House books and Toho that was signed in 1996 to publish various books based on Godzilla and the other Kaiju characters here in North America. Therefore they can get away with slapping an "official" tagline in the title even though there are numerous errors within the tome. The book not only gets some of the release dates and plot synopsis wrong on some of the films, but even claims an actor in a suit played Mothra in Ghidorah The Three Headed Monster when it actually was an articulated prop. In the original film Dr. Yamane stats that Godzilla is 50 meters tall, and this is written in numerous Japanese periodicals as well (such as The Godzilla Graph Book published in 1983 on page 5). He was scaled to peer over the tallest buildings in Tokyo at the time and I believe the biggest building in Tokyo at that point was 45 meters high. Also not to sound anal but 50 meters is 164 feet. You can use this link for conversion. http://www.metric-conversions.org/length/meters-to-feet.htmGiantdevilfish (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.metric-conversions.org/length/feet-to-meters.htm When converting it the other way around it says that 164 feet is 49.9 meters, and that 165 feet is 50.2 meters. Either way, rounding it up or down it's still 50 meters. The article should say 165 feet, though, because that's what Dr. Yamane says in the movie. 99.242.144.216 (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

He says 50 meters in the movie. It must have been subtitled as 165 feet but in the actual film he says 50 meters. They use the metric system in JapanGiantdevilfish (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Please Add...

...Category:Fictional characters with nuclear abilities. --173.51.29.188 (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2014

In the right panel under Alias, the text "Monster Zero 01" should be changed to "Monster 01" as per the name given Godzilla by the people of Planet X in the movie "Invasion of Astro-Monster". "Monster Zero" or "Monster 00" is actually the Planet X name for King Ghidorah, and "Monster 02" is the Planet X name for Rodan. LlelanD (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. I put Monster Zero-One. It works just as well as Monster 01Giantdevilfish (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Godzillas nuclear abilities and superhuman durability

In Godzilla vs. Destoroyah Godzilla_vs._Destoroyah suspects Godzillas heart is a nuclear reactor and the JSDF treats this theory as if it were fact; fearing he will go through nuclear meltdown. The atomic breath is mentioned on Godzillas page as being a nuclear heat ray. I believe Godzilla should be listed under Category:Fictional characters with nuclear or radiation abilities . Also shouldn't he be listed under ? CensoredScribe (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Article Update

Supplementary information such as character profiles depict Godzilla as being 50[28]–100[29] meters (164–328 feet) tall and weighing 20-60,000 tons.[30]

^This line should probably be amended. According to Total Film magazine, Godzilla will be 350 feet tall in the upcoming movie. Perhaps an image of Legendary's Godzilla should be added to the article as well, since it is/will become the most recent incarnation of the character? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.109.237 (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be the American version of Godzilla which should be separated from the original Japanese one since this is a foreign film based on a Japanese character. In other words this version is not created by Toho. Perhaps there should be 2 sections on the article. One for the Japanese Godzilla (who ranged from 164 feet in 1954 to 328 feet in 2004) and the 2 American Godzillas (1998 and 2014. Who ranged from 200 feet (1998) to 350 feet (2014)). This could be similar to how the Japanese King Kongs are separated from the American King Kongs on the King Kong page in regards to their sizes, abilities and appearances.Giantdevilfish (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The 2014 Godzilla is being treated as a new incarnation of the character by the IP owners; the only reason Zilla has been given its own article is because it's no longer legally recognized as a Godzilla incarnation. If Toho and Legendary make no such distinction than neither should Wikipedia. The article also references The Godzilla Power Hour and the Marvel Godzilla comics, which are every bit as American as the upcoming film by Legendary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.109.237 (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Then I guess we should put that Godzilla's size has been from 2 feet to over 700 feet because in the Marvel series he was shrunk to 2 feet tall in one story line, while Herb Trimpe (in one issue and in one panel) drew Godzilla to be taller than the Hoover Dam which would make him over 700 feet tall. If we are going to lump all versions of the character from different countries and different mediums together then the article should reflect that. Also how do we know if Toho considers this a version of their character or not. Do they have it lumped in with their own company created incarnation in their websites or published materials or will it be separate and referred to as an "American" version? In this case I think we should go by what Toho states rather than some PR release from a company that doesn't own the character but who is simply licensing him.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Then I guess we should put that Godzilla's size has been from 2 feet to over 700 feet because in the Marvel series he was shrunk to 2 feet tall in one story line, while Herb Trimpe (in one issue and in one panel) drew Godzilla to be taller than the Hoover Dam which would make him over 700 feet tall

No, because that would blatantly violate WP:NOR (subjective observation vs. official statement from a primary or secondary source.) The article also states that "its size is inconsistent, changing from film to film and even from scene to scene for the sake of artistic license." Toho has had considerable input into the 2014 film and its depiction of the character is as consistent with the Japanese version as the various Japanese Godzillas have been with each other. (The backstory for Legendary's Godzilla appears to share more in common with the 1954 Godzilla than the Heisei incarnation does, for instance.)

There is no separate trademark distinguishing this version of the Godzilla character from any previous versions. Legally, there is no such thing as an "American" Godzilla. As of 2014, Legendary's Godzilla is no less a Godzilla than the Showa, Heisei, Millennium, Marvel, Hanna Barbara or IDW versions, and the article already treats it as such anyway, listing the (yet to be released?) 2014 film as Godzilla's latest appearance in lieu of Final Wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.109.237 (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

EDIT. I edited the page and differentiated the size as being from an American source vs the Toho GodzillaGiantdevilfish (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Some suggestions for first sentence

"Godzilla .... is a Kaiju first appearing in ..."

Most readers will not know what "Kaiju" means. I understand that "Kaiju" is linked, but readers should not be expected to click a link at this point in the article in order to understand the basic lead definition or explanation of the article's subject matter. Therefore, I believe that the word should be briefly explained. This would also remedy the problem that the word "Japan" or "Japanese" is not mentioned anywhere in the first paragraph. Also, there is no obvious reason why "Kaiju" should be capitalised as it does not appear to be a proper noun. 86.176.213.239 (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree which is why I just reworded it. Sometimes these things are written by fans but they need to appeal more to the casual reader which is the whole point of having an online encyclopedia like the Wikipedia in the first place.Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That is much better now ... thanks a lot for doing this. 86.179.5.54 (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Pacific Rim was, to be blunt, a box-office hit; and that had the word "kaiju" in it; the term's probably been adopted into a lot of people's mental dictionaries since it released. And while Godzilla may be Japanese, he's had quite a few American media made for him over his 60+ years in the buisness, so Godzilla's not exclusively a Nippon... and calling him Japanese is also like calling Superman an American; he's from the area, but he's not a member of the nation (of course, I haven't kept up with the Superman comics, so I could well be wrong there). So that, IIRC, is in violation of WP:WAF's stance on real-world VS fictional info. And being Japanese in origin isn't Godzilla's primary defining trait; it's just where he originates. And there's Google for a reason; if someone doesn't know what a word means, they usually Google it first to find out what it means. This is a dictionary, not a Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy, remember. People aren't so bad at Interneting as to be unable to use Google (usually). Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but Pacific Rim was a box office flop in the United States, as it spent just one week in the top five and lost almost $90 million dollars off of its budget. Furthermore since movie studios only keep 55% of the domestic gross of a film and 40% of the International gross, Pacific Rim barely broke even if you crunch the numbers. Movies have to gross roughly 2 and a half times their budgets back in order to generate a profit. So you are wrong when you say it was a hit (The film wasn't even in the top 15 highest grossing films of the year globally). Since the film came and went so quickly and didn't make much of a splash outside of China, its very doubtful that the word "Kaiju" is part of the public conscious. There is no evidence to support it outside of your opinion, especially when you use the term "probably".Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I can absolutely guarantee to you that vast numbers of English-speaking readers will not have the vaguest idea of the word "Kaiju". Sure, people can look up words, or follow Wikipedia links, and in many cases they would be expected to do so. It is not desirable to explain every unusual word everywhere in every article. The difference here is that we are talking about the primary definition of the article's subject. Readers should not be required to look up a foreign word in order to understand the basic definition of the article topic when short and simple English-language explanation is available. 86.167.19.53 (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I still feel that "Japan" or "Japanese" should be worked into the lead definition. -- maybe "orginating in Japan", or something. You have to read it from the perspective of someone who doesn't already know about the subject. First, they probably won't know what language ゴジラ is written in (I know it's mentioned later, but that is scrolled off on the next page, and we have to assume that people are reading sequentially). Also, when we later reach "With the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Lucky Dragon 5 incident still fresh in the Japanese consciousness", the writing seems to assume that the reader already knows that the character is associated with Japan, which has not in fact been mentioned. 86.167.19.53 (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Godzilla is widely known as a Japanese character 'round the globe, yes - even if people still refer to Zilla as Godzilla, people still know that he's a remake of the original Japanese-originated character-, and plenty of people with knowledge of Japanese writing knows what ゴジラ means, and those who don't will either look it up on Google or ask a knowledgable friend if they have one. However, the origin of his character being immediately linked to Japan in the lead is just really shoving Godzilla's country of origin down our gullets. Also, the mentions of the WWII bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are in the lead since they're the character's defining inspiration, like the original King Kong and The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms. Without those bombings, Kong or Rhedosaurus, Godzilla wouldn't exist; it's a vital point to introduce early in the article, and the linking of his origin to them implies damn well enough, in my opinion, that he's a Nippon. And yes, "kaiju", "daikaiju", "eiga", etc. may not be part of the public conscious; but remember that Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, and wikilinking is useful when prose would go too in-depth in an article. Encyclopaedias like WP are as much educative tools as they are historic databases. This character may be Japanese in origin, but we shouldn't cram it down the reader's throats like we're some stuffy, highbrow arses looking down on the readers and calling them "lesser" since they don't know what Kamoebas' Japanese name is. :/ Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)--

I strongly agree, this is poor wording for what is supposed to be English language Wikipedia (it is even worse for anyone trying to read English as a second language). The use of a wikilink and parenthesis to explain are further indicators that the sentence has serious problems. A clearer and simpler wording would be more like:

Godzilla is a monster ... specifically kaiju etc.

Godzilla is a giant monster ... from Japanese films ... daikaiju etc.

Taking the clearest simplest explanation back out of the parenthesis and using it first, then adding the more complicated details as needed is entirely possible without any risk of dumbing down the article.
An example of better intro wording is the introduction for King Kong which is very clear: "King Kong is a fictional character, a giant movie monster resembling a colossal gorilla" and pedantically pointing out that it is a "fictional character" is probably required if you are going to be strict about Wikipedia rules for writing about fiction. Again the intro wording for Mothra and Rodin follows much the same pattern and is fairly clear, whereas the intro for Anguirus has the same problem of throwing the unknown word "kaiju" at readers and then explaining it instead of first simply saying it in English then adding the extra interesting Japanese details. -- 109.77.178.209 (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The current opening is written like this, "...refers to a kaiju (strange creature or monster), or more specifically daikaiju (giant monster), in tokusatsu films from Japan...". It's written as if it's dumbing it down for the reader. The detailed explanation for what is a kaiju or daikaiju is unnecessary because if readers wanted to further find out what is a kaiju, they can click on the link attached to wiki's kaiju article. The original opening, "...is a fictional Kaiju (monster)...", kept it plain and simple while acknowledging what a kaiju is without having the need to break it down to the reader with a basic one sentenced summary of wiki's kaiju article.Armegon (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Godzilla is a movie monster. That the Japanese word kaiju (monster) has entered English is great too but good writing explains in common simple English first and then adds extra details that the Japanese name has become known in English. It is good that the detail is included but it should not be the first sentence.

The Dracula and Count Dracula articles again show the template that is standard for Wikipedia, yet again the pedantic "is a (fictional) character" appears.

I was going to point to Wikipedia but unfortunately that description needs work too, dinosaur (terrible lizard) is a far less simple description than lizard or: Godzilla is a fictional giant lizard monster from Japanese films. Please improve the wording of this article so that no understanding of Japanese is required. It is disappointing that English Wikipedia is not clear and simple Wikipedia is not simple or clear. -- 109.78.234.116 (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry we're using words from Godzilla's native country in the lead, but it's appropriate and the current compromise satisfies at least me. And "dinosaur" =/= ""lizard""; the two are distinct groups, as well; so calling the dinosaur-inspired Godzilla a "lizard" is factually inaccurate on both the character's level and the non-ficton level. Zilla is a lepidosaur, yes; but Godzilla is a prehistoric animal that took design inspiration from Charles R. Knight's drawings of Tyrannosaurus, Stegosaurus and Iguanodon; but since those are outdated, Godzilla looks the most like a ceratosaur currently. Thus (if we were to even classify Godzilla at all), Godzilla would be a ceratosaurian theropodan dinosaurian dinosauromorphan archosaur that originated in Japan; nowhere near a lepidosaur/"lizard". Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)--

It's worth pointing out that hyperlinks are not necessarily useful for everybody who uses Wikipedia. Some people with visual impairments require the use of screen readers to browse internet articles, and a person with colour-blindness might not be able to distinguish a hyperlink from the rest of the text. Relatively obscure terminology such as "daikaiju" and "tokusatsu" should be explained, for the benefit of people who are unfamiliar with these terms and for people who might not be even able to see a hyperlink. Wikipedia articles should be written in a way that is accessible to as broad an audience as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.109.237 (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

A new lead-in was written for the article several months ago, but was lost during the edit warring that attempted to mirror the Wikizilla article. Maybe it could be worked in somehow:

Godzilla (ゴジラ Gojira?) (/ɡɒdˈzɪlə/; [ɡoꜜdʑiɽa] ( listen)) is a fictional character first appearing in Ishirō Honda's 1954 film Godzilla. Since then, Godzilla has gone on to become a worldwide pop culture icon starring in 28 films produced by Toho Co., Ltd.. It is depicted as a giant, radioactive, fire-breathing, supernatural monster that attacks cities and fights other monsters (known in Japan as "kaiju.") Godzilla has appeared in numerous other media incarnations including video games, novels, comic books, and television series. A 1998 American reimagining was produced and a second American version is currently undergoing post-production.[9] The character is commonly alluded to by the title King of the Monsters, an epithet first used in the Americanized version of the original 1954 film.

With the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Lucky Dragon 5 incident still fresh in the Japanese consciousness, Godzilla was conceived as a metaphor for nuclear weapons.[10] As the film series expanded, some stories took on less serious undertones portraying Godzilla as a hero while other plots still portrayed Godzilla as a destructive monster; sometimes the lesser of two threats who plays the defender by default but is still a danger to humanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.109.237 (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggested edit

As article is locked against IP edits: In lead para change "numerous other medium incarnations" to "numerous other media". 202.81.249.9 (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits to height comparisons; "English dub" vs. "Americanized Version"; sources

Since there were a number of reasons why I felt I had to restore my original wording, explaining the difference in height given between the Japanese and American versions of the film, and the rewording of the following sentence, and restoring the citation that I'd made to the film itself, I thought I'd post here rather than rely on a brief edit summary.

Since the fact that in the English dub, Godzilla is described as "over 400 feet tall" (in a scene where he's viewed in a picture peering over the top of a mountain) wasn't deleted, I'll assume that's not controversial. However, I've deliberately chosen to describe this as an "English dub" rather than an "Americanized version" because the latter has a distinct negative connotation; this was only emphasized by the source used in place of the citation I made to the film itself. But the source is an article published in a fan magazine, which consists largely of a list of differences between the two versions, written in a style that made the authors' point of view about the English dub quite clear.

Wikipedia's policies require that information be cited, whenever possible, to durably-archived scholarly sources, and that the information be presented from a neutral point of view. Unsourced and editorialized articles by contributors to fan magazines really shouldn't qualify at all, and "historyvortex.org" isn't a durably-archived source; that link is bound to be broken when the site disappears, and the article is no longer available. In fact, the only articles citing to that site are other articles about kaiju films, and the only information in Wikipedia about the magazines cited by the website as sources for the article are those magazines themselves. So it's really impossible to tell just how authoritative the magazines or their contributors are. Also, the comparison article's not neutral; it's obvious from reading it that the authors didn't like the changes that were made to the film. Using "Americanized version" instead of "English dub" to describe the film emphasizes this opinion. The information in the comparison article is relevant and might be of interest to readers of the Wikipedia article, so I won't be a policy stickler by insisting it be removed, or moved to the "external links" area at the bottom of the page. But some editors might, which is why I cited the difference to the movie itself (a work, whether book or movie, is sufficient as the source of its own contents).

As for the changes to the wording of this and the following sentence, part of it was reworded to be too verbose. I wrote, "Godzilla is estimated to be "over 400 feet tall." This was quickly changed to "Godzilla's height is over-exaggerated as "over 400 feet tall." There are a few issues here. Perhaps they would be better illustrated with a more familiar example. You could say, "Lizzie is estimated to be over six feet tall," or "Lizzie's height is estimated to be over six feet." You wouldn't say both "height" and "tall" because that's inaccurate (and redundant). Her height isn't tall; she is. Either Godzilla's height is over 400 feet, or Godzilla is estimated to be over 400 feet tall. The use of the word "exaggerated" isn't as neutral as "estimated," and it also creates ambiguity as to who's supposed to be exaggerating. Is it the characters in the film, trying to make Godzilla sound bigger than he is, or is it the dub attributing more height than the original? The use of "estimated" eliminates the ambiguity. Also, "over-exaggerated" is redundant and markedly less neutral than "exaggerated" was.

The wording in the following sentence has similar issues. "Godzilla's height is said to be" is less confusing than "Godzilla's height was increased," since the latter could be interpreted to mean that Godzilla grew larger, rather than that the later films assigned him a greater height. I've also tweaked this from the original by changing "was" to "is," since the films still say that; they didn't say it in the past, before changing to say something else now.

I realize this is a lot of writing about a short, two-sentence piece in an article about a (hopefully) fictional character. But I thought it was important to explain the reasons for these changes, since they were reverted by another editor shortly after I wrote them. It's a question of grammar and the relationships between words; avoiding using the same wording twice in consecutive sentences; avoiding using both "height" and "tall" together (we're describing Godzilla's height, not his height's tallness); avoiding ambiguous terms like "exaggerated" and "increased" that leave it unclear who's exaggerating or increasing; and avoiding non-neutral language such as "Americanized version" for "English dub" and "over-exaggerated" for "estimated," as well as ensuring that the difference in versions is cited to the the film itself. P Aculeius (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You're making this out to be far more complicated then it is. When Toho's suit makers designed Godzilla they scaled him to be 164 feet tall. This was how they designed the suit in relation to the miniatures and this was how tall the monster is described on screen as well as countless Japanese source materials. Godzilla, King of the Monsters! is an Americanized version of the original Japanese film. It goes beyond a simple dub. Its a version of the film that contained alot of newly shot scenes, deleted scenes and even reduced some of the nuclear allegory present in the Japanese film. Toho had nothing to do with the film nor is it canonical in regards to the character. The American producer purposely had Raymond Burr's character over-exaggerate not only Godzilla's height but even the voltage of the power lines that were used in the electrical blockade that Godzilla tore through. What you wrote will just confuse readers because its the Japanese version that should take precedent over anything that is mentioned in the bastardized American version. For years I've read this misinformation over and over again in various English language publications. Heck just look at the archive on this talk page and someone asked the question about Godzilla being over 400 feet tall. And this is understandable because here in the West far more people are going to be exposed to the Americanized version rather than the Japanese original. In my edit I was simply explaining that this was an error in the U.S cut. This should be noted in the description rather than what you wrote stating that "he's described as being 400 feet tall in the English dub." First its not a "English dub" but a completely altered film produced by an American producer (heck it even has its own page) and two it should be irrelevant since its stats contradict the canonical Japanese version, and if its going to be there the fact that it is an error (such as being an over-exaggerated number) should be stated because it will just confuse people even more. It will be like "Wait it says here that Godzilla was scaled to be 164 feet but in the English dub it says he's 400 feet. What gives? Maybe Toho meant to say he was 400 feet tall and that this is reflected in the English dub or maybe 164 feet in Japan is 400 feet in America?. Yeah that must be it!". What I wrote explains that it was an error or a mistake in the Americanized version hence the line Godzilla's height is over-exaggerated as. Giantdevilfish (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I can see your point about the use of the phrases "Americanized version" versus "English dub." The replacement of some footage with new scenes and dialogue does make a difference. I preferred a more neutral term, but after considering your argument I'm willing to agree that it's not exactly a dub; but perhaps "American version" would be more neutral than "Americanized version."

However, we're not discussing "canonicity." Only what was said in each film. This article isn't intended to discuss the relative merits of the films or tell people how to think of them. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, not decide which films about a character are "bastardized." What the characters say in the film isn't "misinformation" because the characters weren't trying to mislead anybody, and their statements concern facts about a fictional character. I'm not aware of any sources demonstrating that these changes were the result of errors; it's just how the writers decided to present Godzilla for American audiences. In order to describe it as an error, you need to show that the writers misunderstood the original, or that the dialogue was changed as the result of accident, instead of a deliberate choice. I might add that the dialogue wasn't spoken by Raymond Burr's character. Godzilla's height was estimated by the character of Dr. Yamane.

I understand that the Japanese original used a different figure, but because Godzilla is a fictional character, whose height has always varied from one movie (or television show, or comic book) to another, he has no "real" height, and none of the stated heights can be described as erroneous merely because they differ from whatever the studio's "official" statistic may be now. Nobody will be confused by the fact that different versions give Godzilla's height differently; that's just a typical effect of having multiple versions of a film written or altered by different writers.

I do, however, maintain that "over-exaggerate" is an inappropriate description. First, because "over-exaggerate" is redundant when what you mean is "exaggerate." "Over-exaggerate" implies that a certain amount of exaggeration would have been acceptable, but not the amount stated in the film. It's not appropriate for Wikipedia editors to judge the acceptable limits of exaggeration, any more than it is to announce which films are "canonical" and which aren't. Secondly, by stating that the figure is exaggerated, one creates ambiguity as to whether the writers or the characters are exaggerating. Of course, the writers can't really be exaggerating because Godzilla doesn't really exist and doesn't have a height; and the characters weren't exaggerating, because they weren't attempting to make Godzilla sound bigger than he really was; they were reporting the official estimate for the film they were in. It doesn't matter that the writers changed their dialogue to make them say something other than the original dialogue; that doesn't mean that the characters are exaggerating. But even without these issues, by using "exaggerated" instead of the neutral "said" or "reported" one creates ambiguity that otherwise wouldn't exist. P Aculeius (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Again you are making this more complex then it actually is. I don't know if you watched the original Japanese version but Dr. Yamane specifically states that Godzilla is 50 meters tall. 50 meters is 164 feet. Its explicitly stated as such. Whats stated in the American version is simply wrong as it gives a completely different number. Since this is a Japanese film it should take precedent over any altered foriegn edit that Toho wasn't involved in. This is why the number given in the American edit shouldn't even be there since its irrelevant. Wether Godzilla is fictional or not Toho went with guidelines on the characters sizes not just in whats stated on film but also in regards to how the minatures and suits were built in terms of scale. Also i don't know why you put the word official in quotes since that is how big he was scaled in the films from 1991 through 1994 and again in 2004. In the film Godzilla vs Mothra there is a scene where they are looking at Godzilla on a computer and it states his height as 100 meters. Not only is this established within the films but this is the scale that Toho technicians worked with when they built the miniatures and the suit. Giantdevilfish (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the character, not about the character's official biography according to a single source. You don't get to pick and choose which movies (or other media) you do and don't want to include. The fact that the character of Dr. Yamane says one thing in the Japanese version has no bearing on the fact that he says something different in the American version. Nor is it possible to say which is "right" and which is "wrong" when speaking of a fictional character. That would be like saying that the earliest stories about King Arthur or Robin Hood or Superman are more correct than later stories when the two conflict, or that traditional ballads are right while Howard Pyle's versions are wrong. Statements in the American version aren't "wrong" merely because they're inconsistent with the Japanese version on which they're based, even if the scale models are more consistent with the Japanese version. As Wikipedia editors our job is to report on the subject, not to reconcile conflicting versions or decide which is the best or most logical result.

I put the word "official" in quotation marks because the concept of an "official" height is itself dubious in the absence of a clear standard on which to judge its officialness. On what grounds is it possible to call one of numerous estimates "official" and disregard others? If Toho pictures announces Godzilla's height by writing it into a film, presumably that's "official." But then when that number changes in the next film, does that become "official," and the first one "not official?" Since it's not possible to measure a real Godzilla, any measurement of his height is inherently arbitrary, since it varies from one movie (or television show, or comic book) to another. They're not all made by the same company, or written by the same writers, but they're all licensed in one form or another, and so all of them have some claim to officialness. You can't simply go back and revoke all of those statements, issue a new decision, and expect everyone else to accept it as "more official than all of the others." If the passage can be reworded without implying that one estimate is more accurate than another, then by all means, go ahead. Otherwise, all you can do is note that Godzilla's height varies depending on the movie and source. P Aculeius (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think this is a joke on your part. There is no way you can be serious here. There is no way you can be writing page after page trying to justify adding inaccurate numbers over a fictional character's height (And I'm getting suckered into this madness). Alot of what you saying just doesn't make sense. Yes we should pick and choose what to write about the character from official sources and not altered foreign versions that give you contradictory info or misinformation. If Godzilla appears as 164 feet on screen then the fact that a bunch of Hollywood writers misidentified that height and gave up widely inaccurate numbers that don't match whats presented on screen should be disregarded or a least stated as an error. As Wikipedia editors its our job to identify misinformation or disregard it entirely. While we are talking about a fictional character we have to go by what the creators of the character say or write about the character and disregard any misinformation made by companies that contradict what is stated in the films or in official sources. If this is the case why not use "King Kong" and "Gorgo" and "Watang" as alternate names for Godzilla because he's gone by those names in foreign releases. He's called Watang in the Italian version of Mothra vs Godzilla. In the German films he's often cited as an enemy of Frankenstein, in a Spanish version he's described as being extraterrestrial . etc. We can't list all this because it contradicts whats presented in the original films. You mentioned Superman. DC owns Superman. If a foreign edit of one of the comic books or films states that Superman is really a robot or is a shapchanging alien from a galaxy of intelligent badgers should that be listed on the page? No because its inaccurate and contradicts whats present in the DC comics or films and how the character is established by its creators. These things should take precedent.

Your second point makes no sense because Toho scales the character a certain way using a 1/25 or 1/50 guide so if they say Godzilla is 164 feet tall in one film or 328 feet in another film those are indeed official numbers because that is how the character is scaled and described as such in the films by the films creators. The smallest he has ever been scaled was 164 feet and the largest 328 feet. He has never been smaller or larger. The only time he was larger was in the licensed American film from 2014. We can;t go and challenge that because that would violate WP:NORGiantdevilfish (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't get to decide that one version of the character is "accurate" and the other "inaccurate" in order to limit the information provided in the article. We're not talking about mere translation differences; you yourself made the point of calling the American version a separate film. Nor is this about an unauthorized knockoff version, like your Superman examples. But just as Superman's appearance and characteristics in movies and television are relevant to the character, so Godzilla's characteristics in films and media other than the ones you consider "canonical" are relevant to this article. The fact that his particulars differ from one film to another are relevant, and can't be described as "misinformation" without interjecting your point of view, which isn't allowed in Wikipedia articles.

There certainly are limits to how much information is relevant in an article of reasonable length. I completely agree that if a single dub of one film into another language assigns Godzilla a name that isn't used again, then it's probably not important enough to mention. From what I see, the name is usually spelled the same in most languages, including Italian, and pronounced however that spelling would normally be pronounced in those languages; so a one-off name in a single translation probably isn't worth mentioning. But, as many writers have pointed out, the American version of the original film is probably the most familiar to English-speaking audiences, or at least it was prior to the 1984, 1998, and 2014 films. So the description given there is quite relevant.

The last point was that there's no such thing as an "official" height that anybody is obliged to respect. This article is about the character, not the character as portrayed only in a certain number of films. Over the years Godzilla has been at least half a dozen different sizes, depending on which movie, which television program, which comic book is at issue. But as even Toho has used at least two different heights, calling one of them "official" would necessarily mean that the other one was somehow less official or inaccurate. So if Godzilla is now "officially" 100 meters tall according to Toho, does that mean that he wasn't 50 meters tall in the original film? That's not how the article is written, nor how it should be written. The wording you substituted this morning, to the effect that his size was "increased", without reference to "officialness", avoids that problem. P Aculeius (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't get to decide that one version of the character is "accurate" and the other "inaccurate" in order to limit the information provided in the article. We're not talking about mere translation differences; you yourself made the point of calling the American version a separate film. Nor is this about an unauthorized knockoff version, like your Superman examples. But just as Superman's appearance and characteristics in movies and television are relevant to the character, so Godzilla's characteristics in films and media other than the ones you consider "canonical" are relevant to this article. The fact that his particulars differ from one film to another are relevant, and can't be described as "misinformation" without interjecting your point of view, which isn't allowed in Wikipedia articles.

Yes I do think we do get to decide which one is accurate or not going by whats stated by the creators in the original work. Godzilla is a Japanese creation not an American one. "Gojira" is a Japanese film not an American one. Godzilla was created by Tomuyoki Tanaka, Ishiro Honda and Eiji Tsuburaya NOT Joseph Levine, Terry Turner and Edward Barison. Whats stated in the original source material takes precedent over any sort of foreign edit or alteration. So if these foreigners come up with something that contradicts whats stated or presented in a film that they modified without any participation of the films creators or copyright holders (all Toho did was sell the distribution rights to their film. They had no way of knowing the movie would be completely altered with new/deleted footage), then whats stated in this version is simply not accurate and either should be disregarded from the Wikipedia or at the very least stated that it contains misinformation (and its not my point of view, the facts presented in the American cut are blatantly wrong. There is a big difference between 400 and 164). Just like in the American version of King Kong vs Godzilla they make it seem like its Godzilla's first appearance contradicting that he is an established entity in the Japanese version and treated as old news in the context of the story. Or in Godzilla Raids Again, how the character was given a new origin (He evolved from early reptiles that lived in pools of flame when the Earth was being created, so fire became a part of his organic makeup(!!)), which contradicts whats presented in the Japanese version of the film. These shouldn't be applied to an article about how the character was created or his sizes/stats/origins by his creators/copyright holders. These sort of foreign alterations should be on the various movie articles under "English version" or "American version" or "Production" rather than on the characters bio page. This wasn't some original work like the Marvel comic books or Hanna Barabara cartoon where, after licensing the character, those particular entities created new stories or adaptations in a different medium. And unlike the recent American film, the films I listed above utilized the original Japanese films themselves and were altered by the foreign production company. So if this is the case any sort of modification of these films should really be more about the production than the character.

so a one-off name in a single translation probably isn't worth mentioning.

Then the same thing could be applied to Godzilla's error in height in GKOTM or his new origin in Godzilla Raids Again, because these were one offs in single American alteration(s). It was never mentioned again in any other American dub or American edit of a Godzilla film. This inaccurate size description is no different than an inaccurate origin or name given to the character in some of the overseas foreign releases. Heck Godzilla is referred to as an enemy of Frankenstein in pretty much every German release of the original films and in two separate Spanish films is described as being an Alien.Giantdevilfish (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the character of Godzilla, and is not about one particular version at one particular time or place. If you want to write a separate article about just one particular incarnation of Godzilla, or devote a subsection of this article to it, by all means, go ahead. But you can't exclude every other version from an article about the character in general, simply by calling them all "inaccurate," "bastardized," "over-exaggerated," "altered," "misinformation," or "non-canonical." You may only want "Godzilla" to refer to the character as portrayed in certain films, but that's not how most readers understand it. P Aculeius (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand that the article is about the character of Godzilla but the point I'm making is if you are going to list an inaccurate height stated in a US edit of one film you are going to have to list an inaccurate origin stated in the US dub of another film (Godzilla Raids Again) or an inaccurate origin and name from another film (The Italian version of Mothra vs Godzilla where Godzilla is an alien monster called Watang http://www.ivid.it/fotogallery/imagesearch/images/watang_nel_favoloso_impero_dei_mostri_herbert_king_ishiro_honda_001_jpg_gqgg.jpg.

You can't pick and choose which foreign info or stats you are going to add or not going to add. You can't just list his inaccurate height in one film and then ignore his inaccurate names and origins in others. You either do them all or you don't do any of them. To illustrate my point about Godzilla's height being an error, in 1998 Toho endorsed a book called The Official Godzilla Compendium. You know what the byline reads? “What’s green, 400 feet tall, and eats trains for breakfast? If your answer is Godzilla, you’re wrong, and you need this book!” http://www.historyvortex.org/GodzillaCompendiumPh_002.jpg

The whole point of the book was dispel myths and inaccuracies about the character and they used the "400 feet tall" size as a specific point about these errors. That should tell you something. So writing such things "inaccurate, and "over-exaggerated," and "altered," and "misinformation" are legit because that's exactly what that stat about his height in the US version is and having it there will simply confuse readers as I stated in my very fist post.Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No matter how many fanzines, fanbooks, or licensed Toho sources you cite, you still can't call every variation you don't like "inaccurate," "overexaggerated," or "misinformation," because all of those imply a degree of factualness that doesn't exist in relationship to a fictional character who's been portrayed differently over many films and in other media. Godzilla has no "accurate," "factual" or otherwise "correct" height. As a fictional character, his height is whatever it's said to be in each work in which he appears. If you can demonstrate that he has other names or other origin stories in some media, then those are relevant and may be discussed in this article without being disparaged as "inaccurate" or "wrong" in any way. If you attempt to say that some versions are "right" and others "wrong" then you will be violating Wikipedia's policy about maintaining a neutral point of view.

That doesn't mean that you can't sort out the various accounts and group them for discussion. It would be perfectly appropriate to have one subsection devoted solely to Godzilla's description in the original Japanese films, and another on his appearance in other languages, non-Japanese films, television, comics, etc. But you can't simply excise the ones you don't want to appear in the article for no other reason than that you don't regard them as "official," or attempt to present them in a way that suggests that some versions are "better" or "more accurate" than others.

There is a section under the NPOV page that discusses according undue weight to certain information in an article. You may indeed exclude things that are of so little consequence that discussing them at all in an article of a certain length or extent would give them unwarranted attention. If the name "Watang" appears in only one Italian translation of a Godzilla film, and nowhere else, even in other Italian translations of Godzilla films, then you might argue that it's not worth mentioning (however, this source says that "Watang" wasn't Godzilla's name in the film, but an island; Godzilla was called "Godzilla" in the film). I think the same may be true for mentions of "Frankenstein" or "Frankenstein's Monster". While those words appear in the titles of German translations of Godzilla films, neither Dr. Frankenstein nor his monster appear in any Godzilla films (there was a plan to make a "Godzilla vs. Frankenstein" film, but it was never made); the name merely occurred in the titles for dramatic effect, and so is more suited to a footnote or a discussion of Godzilla in translation.

On the other hand, if there's a section of the article discussing Godzilla's height in various films, then you can't simply dismiss the American version of the original film merely because you'd rather not count it. It's one of the best-known of all the films, and so hardly a footnote. The height given there isn't a "myth" because that's really what's said in the film. If people believed that something occurred in the film that didn't occur at all, then that would be a myth, at least in the sense of the word meaning "a mistaken belief." If people believe that the original Japanese film said that Godzilla was 400 feet tall, then that would be a myth. But since this is actually said in the American version, that's not a myth. It's merely inconsistent with the original screenplay upon which the American version was based.

Since you've left the basic facts alone for several days, there's no need to keep going around in circles. I suggest letting this argument die if there's no point in continuing it. Unless the article is going to be restructured to account for appearances in different media, it seems moot to me. P Aculeius (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Saying the American version is the best known version might apply to the American market but the dialogue was dubbed in different countries and we don't know the "400 feet tall" error is in those foreign dubs or not. Furthermore I think its safe to say the the Japanese version has probably supplanted the American edit here in the West (and more than likely Worldwide as well) with not only its theatrical releases by Rialto but its numerous DVD releases including Criterion so now many people are being exposed to the original Japanese cut of this film.

You're argument in Godzilla not having an actual height is flawed because as I already stated the suit makers and model builders built Godzilla to be a specific scale when they designed the suits and miniatures and stated as such on film. He is scaled to be 164 feet on film and that is the scale they used in regards to how the sets and miniatures were built. It wasn't just like them making some small buildings and just optically enlarged the character on screen just so he looks big. They specifically built a 6 foot tall suit and then used a 1/27 scale for the miniatures. This isn't like King Kong (in the original film) who had various size fluctuations throughout the course of the movie and doesn't have one specific height. Whether he's fictional or not is irrelevant because there are parameters that are established in the work of fiction. The same thing would apply to my argument about Godzilla having an altered origin in Godzilla Raids Again which contradicts anything that is ever stated in any sort of Japanese film or publication yet it is not on this page. Why? As far as Frankenstein goes, every German version of a Godzilla film lists the monsters as being a creation of Frankenstein. I have a German copy of Godzilla vs Hedorah and its explained in the dub that Hedorah was a creation of Dr. Frankenstein. So while his classic Mary Shelly creation isn't in any film the fact that all of Godzilla foes are Frankenstein creations should be noted should it not? Shouldn't the page on Hedorah list him as being Frankensteins creation in the German version? Also twice in Foreign films, Godzilla has been referred to as Gorgo. In the Italian version of All Monsters Attack and the Spanish version of Godzilla vs Megalon. So he's been called Gorgo in more films then being listed as "400 feet tall". Yet you feel the need to add that piece of trivial info but won't list the others.

There is a section under the NPOV page that discusses according undue weight to certain information in an article. You may indeed exclude things that are of so little consequence that discussing them at all in an article of a certain length or extent would give them unwarranted attention.

Then can't you make the argument about his over exaggerated height in the one film from 1956? Wouldn't that one piece of info be so trivial and of little consequence (because the scale and height pertaining to the character on film is already stated in the article), that a sentence about an incorrect height in one version of the film be considered inconsequential? I'm having trouble why you feel the need to list one piece of trivial misinformation from a foreign edit (his size) and then not list pieces of trivial misinformation about his origin and name.

there's no need to keep going around in circles. I suggest letting this argument die if there's no point in continuing it.

Why don't we get a administrator or a third opinion to settle this. Lets try this WP:CONTENTDISPUTEGiantdevilfish (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You've made a wonderful case for adding other trivia to the article. Fine, if all the German versions of the film actually state that Dr. Frankenstein created all of the other monsters Godzilla battled, then say so in the article. And if other names have been regularly assigned to Godzilla in other translations (as opposed to a single appearance of a name not subsequently used in other translations into that language), then that should be mentioned too. But you're not going to convince anybody that the 1956 American version of the original film is too trivial to mention in this article, or that differences in Godzilla's height due to that film shouldn't be included in the article.

I'm not going to keep responding to your arguments about there being an "actual" height for Godzilla, since you seem unwilling to understand the difference between a fictional character who's appeared in various media, all of them licensed, at different heights, and a single version that you insist on treating as definitive for the character despite every other version. This is the last I intend to say on the subject: there is no real Godzilla. He cannot be measured. Therefore his height is whatever it is said to be in each work of properly licensed fiction including the character. If he is assigned different heights in different films, those are relevant to the article, and none of them can be dismissed as "inaccurate" or "over-exaggerated" merely because they differ from Toho pictures' original intentions (and bearing in mind that Godzilla has had two different heights even in the Japanese films). Insisting on labeling every other estimate or measurement as defective or incorrect in some regard is POV-pushing. P Aculeius (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

But you're not going to convince anybody that the 1956 American version of the original film is too trivial to mention in this article, or that differences in Godzilla's height due to that film shouldn't be included in the article.

I'm sure I can. If another party or mediator came in and listened to our arguments they would probably agree. You have to remember that that "400 feet tall" edit has been removed in the past for being considered "trivial" by other editors. This wasn't the first time that it had been added to the page.

I'm not going to keep responding to your arguments about there being an "actual" height for Godzilla, since you seem unwilling to understand the difference between a fictional character who's appeared in various media, all of them licensed, at different heights, and a single version that you insist on treating as definitive for the character despite every other version.

That section starts off saying "In the context of the Japanese films" so its talking about the characters appearance in the original medium (films) and how he was scaled by the company that created him.

(and bearing in mind that Godzilla has had two different heights even in the Japanese films).

Yes and this is covered in the article. Toho rescaled Godzilla in latter films and built smaller less detailed miniatures to accommodate his enlarged height using a 1/55 scale.

Why don't you bring a third party in to decide who makes a better point here like I susgested. I think its more than fair. If the third party (another editor or administrator) agrees with me. It goes. If they agree with you it stays. What do you say?Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding a link of interest to the Godzilla page

I added a link to [blocked link to kaiju wikidot] this page to the Godzilla page. It was removed per point 11 of the external links guide; however, I think it is a relevant addition that is enjoyable and informative. This page is not part of a "blog" or "fan site," but an effort to compile every giant movie monster into one virtual encyclopedia. The site has no advertising, social aspect, or self-promotion, no real-life individual is mentioned throughout. It is even "hosted" by an imaginary cuttlefish monster; it is all about the monsters.

What information does this link have that is relevant? All 30 incarnations of Godzilla on one page, that's it. This allows you to see Godzilla's 60-year evolution without having to click on 30 different movie links, and really gives a much better impression of the history of Godzilla than linked articles. Thank you for your time! Doctor Kaiju (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Since the website in question is your own fan site it is no surprise that you find it "a relevant addition". Numerous editors have reverted your self-promotional edits and warned you on your talk page and yet you persist. Please stop spamming wikipedia. Helpsome (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not a fan site, Helpsome, but an effort to collect all giant movie monsters from various contributors into an online encyclopedia; it is no more a fan site than Wikipedia itself. It is not self-promotional (unless you really think I am a squid). The links offer content that is relevant to the subject not available in that format elsewhere. Now that you know it is neither a fan site or self-promotional, I hope that you change your mind. Thank you! Doctor Kaiju (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC) REMEBER GODZILLA IS REAL AND IS COMING FOR YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.165.228.246 (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure our readers appreciate a link to Toho's Godzilla page in JAPANESE instead of [blocked link to kaiju wikidot] this. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Overview section

I'm noticing a lot of edits to the Character biography / Character Overview / Overview section, all devoted to some silent battle of semantics of what the sections should be called. I think it would be healthier to reach a consensus through discussion before we risk breaking the three-revert rule or breaking out into an edit war.

Personally I think it was smart putting the Name and Development sections into a broader "overview" section, but I don't think we need to specify "character overview" or "character biography," especially not the latter as it's not really a "biography" per se. The entire article is about the character of Godzilla; the word "character" in the section header is just semantics, and semantics don't help the article. Neither do constant reverts. User:Crawldragon (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I changed it from character bio to simply overview because it is plain, simple, and straight to the point. I think calling it character biography or character overview seems a bit redundant because readers will immediately know that the article is dedicated to the character, so there is no need to bash them in the head with that fact again and again. Also, why are the article's footnotes and references copied and pasted here? I tried removing them but they're still there. Armegon (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I think someone was trying to explain why certain references they'd used were valid, or copy-pasting text from the article. Crawldragon (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Godzilla undead?

It's been a while since I've seen the first Godzilla movie, but I don't recall it being mentioned that Godzilla was frozen in a block of ice or that there were immortal hibernating dinosaurs. Does it ever explicitly state in any official resources what Godzillas status was prior to the atomic testing that woke it? Bullets and Bracelets (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

In the film, Dr.Yamane states that Godzilla is a type of Dinosaur that is a hybrid of marine and land reptiles. He states that Dinosaurs died out 2 million years ago (! More like 65 million years) and that Godzilla has been living at the bottom of the Ocean surviving into the present day by sustaining itself on deep sea organisms. Atomic bomb testing drove Godzilla to the surface and irradiated him in the process.Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Now has diplomatic immunity for foreign 'visits'

Seriously though, is this worth mentioning in the article?: Godzilla appointed Tokyo resident and tourism ambassador (AP) Ceannlann gorm (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It does sound silly, but it does represent the cultural impact that the character has. Most people probably think of Godzilla when someone mentions Japan, along with Geisha Girls, Samurais, Sushi, Anime, Sumo wrestlers etc.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Technical details on suit

Seeing how the King Kong article devotes a lot of space to describing the various SFX used to bring the creature to life, I think it would be warranted to include a section detailing how the Godzilla suits evolved over time. I'm not talking about aesthetic differences, but technical ones, like how the suit in GvB was the first and last to use actual lights in the spines, and how suits from GvSG onwards incorporated ventilation systems. Are there any legit sources confirming these? Mariomassone (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Does the King Kong article go into technical details about the SFX? I don't see a section describing the different techniques used to bring the character to life. Stop motion models, animated bust, man in suit, CGI, 40 foot robot Kong etc. There is as section describing Kongs appearances, sizes, abilities etc, but I don't see an actual section covering the SFX techniques. Unless I'm missing something.

As for the Godzilla suits would you mean something like this http://becominggodzilla.com/official-toho-suits/ Giantdevilfish (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Funny, I remembered a more extensive description... In any case, here are some gems gleaned from the Godziszewski documentary which I think would be good to incorporate into the article:

• Taking inspiration from King Kong, Eiji Tsuburaya initially wanted to use stop-motion SFX, but a lack of experienced animators in Japan made this unfeasable.
• Prior to Godzilla, no one in Japan had ever done a latex kaiju body suit, thus there was a lot of trial and error.
• Godzilla's initial designs were submitted by non-Toho affiliated artists. The first submissions came from cartoonist Kaziyoshi Abe [sp?], who designed the creature as an ape-like monster with a mushroom cloud-shaped head. Akira Watanabe, Toho's art department chief, felt this wasn't consistent with the dinosaurian look the art department had in mind, so he took control of the desgning process.
• The back plates were added for purely aesthetic purposes in order to differentiate Godzilla from any known living or extinct creature.
• The suit consisted of a body cavity made of thin wires and bamboo wrapped in chicken wire for support, and covered in fabric and cushions. The cavity was then coated in latex. The suit was held together by small hooks on the back, though subsequent Godzilla suits incorporated a zipper. The suit was designed so that the actor's head was inside Godzilla's neck. Its weight was in excess of 100 kg.

Mariomassone (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Honorary Japanese citizenship?

Assuming this has any legitimacy, should this story, which has made a few headlines everywhere in the past couple days, be included in the article? It certainly sounds like a notable testament to the character's iconic status. ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 23:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Portrayal

I think it is important to note the difference. In every Toho Godzilla, a person wears the Godzilla suit. That is portraying the monster. In the 2014 film, someone wore motion capture sensors. The reference doesn't even explain what he did in any detail. Previously, someone wanted to claim that Andy Serkis was Godzilla. We simply must be careful that we are not misleading. Maybe there is some similar situation to compare. Alaney2k (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with including the "(motion capture)" text next to TJ Storm's name in the infobox anymore but I do have a minor issue with a similar edit done by you in the infobox, regarding that we should use the movie titles instead of studio titles for the American films of the infobox's portrayal section. Normally I wouldn't have a problem with it but I find a few problems going with the movie titles instead of studio titles regarding the American films, ONE: all the actors of the Toho films are summed up under one section per era under the name of that era instead of the movie titles like...

Godzilla (1984)-Godzilla vs. Destoroyah

Ken Satsuma

Godzilla (1954)-Godzilla vs. Gigan

Haruo Nakajima

Terror of Mechagodzilla

Toru Kawai

If we go by the movie titles, I think it would confuse future editors and set a precedent for future editors to think its okay to break down the Toho actors by the films they played Godzilla in because it was done for the American films. It would cause edit-reverts that could generate a potential edit-war and we would all end up back here in the talk page. SECONDLY: Legendary has confirmed a trilogy of their own. I think it's safe to assume that they will use some motion capture for their sequels. Regardless whether its the same performer or not, said performer will inevitably be listed in the infobox and it would stand out awkwardly if it was listed as...

Godzilla (2014)

TJ Storm

Godzilla (2018)

[performer's name]

If Legendary intended to produce only one film, I think going by the movie titles would be fine but we're gonna see sequels from them, and since there is no appropriate or official era-title to name the Legendary films like the Toho films (Showa, Heisei, etc.), I think it's appropriate to go with the studio title for the American films, 2014 is a film from Legendary and 1998 is a film from TriStar. Both films are called Godzilla, it's not hard to distinguish the films by the studio titles as it is by the year they were released. I don't believe it is indirect and unclear to use the studio names, readers will know which film belonged to which studio, as it is stated in the article's lead and further emphasized in the Special FX Detail section but, Alaney2k, we have helped each other in various Godzilla-related articles in the past and from one fan & editor to another, what do you think? Armegon (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Often we have to try to think from someone who does not know what is meant by what we write. For example, we simply say a company name. It means something to you and I, but what does it mean to someone without that knowledge. So I think we might be failing those persons. Anyway, to your point: Well, we could say that we can always change it in the future. The other thing we could do is lump the Tristar and Legendary into 'American series'. What do you think? Alaney2k (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

We could do that? But I think it might confuse readers into thinking that TriStar's and Legendary's film(s) are related, plus, where/how would we distinguish the performers apart if we put them under one section? That method only works for the Toho performers because all their work was done under one studio while the American performers worked with different studios. And to be fair regarding using company name, a lot of us tend to use the term "Toho Godzilla" in various articles to distinguish the Japanese original from other non-Japanese incarnations, especially the TriStar & Legendary main Godzilla articles and the Zilla article, which has been titled as Zilla (Toho), with the company name attached. You're a tad bit right when you say when we write something, it means something to us fans but may not mean anything to an outsider, however, the whole point of wiki is to inform readers. When the readers read further, especially in the lead, I think it would become clear to readers the differences between the Hollywood films. After all, I did emphasize in the lead that Godzilla received "two Hollywood reboots: one produced by TriStar Pictures released in 1998 as Godzilla and a second produced by Legendary Pictures released in 2014 also as Godzilla". I think once they read that and see the performers in the infobox distinguished by the studio names, it'll become clear to them which performer participated in which American film. Am I making any sense? Armegon (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Fully-Protected edit request on 20 June 2015

Could we have this article (Godzilla)

upgraded? — 2601:183:4000:D5BD:8945:B1F0:B4A5:D0AB (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Than why don't you help with the "change X to Y" format Stickee (talk) hm? — 73.47.37.131 (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Roar source

In the section "Characteristics", the current source for the roar [33] is no longer up. It automatically redirects to a different website. Here is a better and more accurate source: http://www.npr.org/2014/05/18/312839612/whats-in-a-roar-crafting-godzillas-iconic-sound I think we should be more specific and say that it is a pine tar rosin-covered glove.

Done and thanks for the souce Cannolis (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Atomic fire breath

Watching the films, you may wonder why Godzilla does not use his atomic fire breath more when fighting enemies? This was explained in passing in Godzilla vs Biollante. Every time he uses it, he uses some of his internal radiation so it costs him in bodily energy to use it.(83.40.0.62 (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC))

Origins

Godzilla Vs King Ghidorah (1991) explores the origins of the Godzilla monster. 6 Feb, 1944 he was discovered as a dinosaur on Ragos Island. 8 days later he was badly wounded by American warship bombardment but he killed the Americans on the island so the ships left, as did a small group of Japanese. In 1954, atomic tests on nearby Bikini Island radiatied the island, and the dinosaur, evolving it into Godzilla. Rebels from 2204 AD tried to remove Godzilla from Earth's history by teleporting the dinosaur to another place far away, meanwhile leaving behind three genetically created "dorats" who would evolve through radiation into King Ghidorah who would destroy Japan without interference from Godzilla.

What they had not counted on was that when they placed the dinosaur (underwater dinosaur?) in the Bering Sea, a nuclear submarine would later sink close by and more strongly radiate the dinosaur, not just turning him into Godzilla but a bigger, more powerful and more savage monster.(83.34.64.211 (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC))

Feeding time

In later stories, Godzilla often rampaged through populated areas on his way to a nuclear power station where he could feed on nuclear material to refuel his internal nuclear reactor. Why did they not just dump nuclear waste (in containers) near wherever Godzilla was resting so he could feed on that and leave cities alone, thus solving the problem of what to do with nuclear waste too? (80.31.147.205 (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC))

Godzilla's metaphor

When the Japanese people were in the Atomic age lots of soldiers died from nuclear bomb attacks. Godzilla represents the soldiers that died from the nuclear bombs.

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20140516-giant-lizard-on-the-loose 74.62.206.220 (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Request edit request on 13 June 2016

— 2601:183:4000:D5BD:CD4E:2219:E6C2:F3FB (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Noted, thanks for the suggestion. I looked at a rough translation of the ja-wiki page, and most of the page is about which films and TV shows Godzilla has appeared in. That information is already covered in the English article Godzilla (franchise), whereas there is little extra information about the monster itself that ja-wiki currently has, but this article (which is about the monster, not the franchise) lacks. Altamel (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Featured Article

This article is great. Why hasn't it been nominated to be a featured article?--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)