Talk:Clover (creature)/Archive 2

Size

so how tall exactly was it. taller than the statue of liberty or what? because from time to time in the movie it seemed as if the size of the creature was growing or shrinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.94.105 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Right now there's no way to say with any precision. The apparent size changes could be due to posture and stance, I suppose? -- Vary | Talk 22:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We must aknowledge that there is no requirement for continuity. The size of the creature in the movie can be whatever the director decides is best at any time. -Verdatum (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

okay, now I'm gonna feel really weird because I'm about to answer my own question that I posted about 2-3 weeks ago. This is informative in case we should put it in character description. Okay, when they are at Beth's apartment they are on the 39th floor. when Hud looks out and sees the monster, Clover is the same height. An average storey in New York is 12 feet, however to me it seemed as if beth's place was 10 feet. also the apartment was on its side so take away about 4 floors so it would be like the correct height of the 35th floor. making the monster i would say an average above 300 ft high. If this is original research, oops. i'm not sure exactly what original research is. so if it is,i apologize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.94.105 (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's benificial when users explain that they've answered their own questions. It keeps questions from seeming open-ended. But I'm afraid this is indeed Original Research. It's a type of OR known as "synthesis", which mean you are taking two or more facts that you know, and combining them to produce a new fact. To better understand issues of Original Research, you should read Wikipedia:No original research. Synthesis is specifically covered in the subsction WP:SYN. -Verdatum (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

oh, i'm sorry, please forgive me. I had no idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.94.105 (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Production notes 'not verifiable'?

I'm being reverted over this edit (a bit of content moved from another section that was recently deleted) with the justification that the information doesn't appear in the production notes (it does, under 'Building a Better Monster') or that the production notes are 'not verifiable' by dint of not having a listed author and being hosted at Rotten Tomatoes. [1] Does anyone else have concerns about the production notes? Is there some other reason why this rather fun fact should not be used? -- Vary | Talk 06:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is the fact, the problem is that when you added it, you failed to add a reference. Because this article has been the subject of heavy edits lately, so the editors of the article have had to keep a pretty low tolerance for new WP:OR to prevent the quality of the article from slipping. If you make the edit with the reference, it should stick, and if anyone has a problem with it, they'd generally be expected to bring it here for discussion first. -Verdatum (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That was what I thought at first, but that doesn't appear to be it. Per the MOS, it's acceptable for uncontroversial information to be added without an inline citation, provided the reference used is cited somewhere in the article, which is why I didn't bother with a footnote at first. But if you check out the edit history you'll see that I did later add a footnote; that version was removed here as not being backed up by the source provided, and I was informed here that the editor doing the reverting did not find the notes an acceptable source. So I put the D in BRD and took it to talk in case I was missing something, rather than re-reverting. Sorry if I was unclear; maybe I should have provided better diffs. I've added a link to the most recent revert to my comment above.

So, so far as you're concerned, the info and sourcing are okay? -- Vary | Talk 13:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Vary, this issue was addressed on your talk page. The document is hosted by Rotten Tomatoes. There is no proof of ownership or copyright. There is no author given to who wrote it. There are quotes, and then there are non-quotes without any differentiation between the two. You cited in the above from a non-quoted section from a document without an author. It does not meet the standards of verifiability. You also cannot prove that it was not hosted by a user of Rotten Tomatoes instead of a site administrator. Just like IMDB user information cannot be used, Rotten Tomatoes user base information cannot be used. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And if someone can prove the legitimacy of the document, without knowing who the author is, there is no way to show that the non-quoted citations can be taken as legitimate. Why would there be random quotes in "production notes" and not follow standard production notes formula? Why would it read like an article? These are important considerations. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Curious. The change comment said that a search for the word "Clover" in the reference came up with nothing, which doesn't appear to be true. The reference is used elsewhere in the article, and while it may be trumped by a more reputable resource, I don't think there's any particular reason to doubt it's content. Following WP:V to the letter, it's not a particularly good source (actually I haven't searched it out yet. I don't know what's required to get a document onto Rotten Tomatoes), but in terms of "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" I don't personally think it's that exceptional of a claim. So yeah, I'm ok with the addition, but that's really just my opinion, it probably depends on concensus in this case. -Verdatum (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, from Ottava's comments, I'll take a closer look at this later. -Verdatum (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing verifiable, I ment. i.e. it was in parenthesis by no author and thus no attribution to who claims it. It was a random claim about what the "crew" said. That does not make it official in any regard (by standards of it being attributable, or by standards of who gets to name the creature). The fact that all the quotes call it the creature suggests that they did not want there to be an official name. People have claimed that the director titled the creature, or that Abrams titled the creature. None of this appears in the source that was given. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not "ignore" your talk page message, Ottava. I responded to it, and did so before I posted here. But this is where the discussion belongs, not there; if you're questioning the validity of a source used in the article, that's something that needs to be addressed on the article talk page. It's rude to accuse others of rudeness (or of not checking their sources) without getting your facts straight first.

As I said in my message on your talk page, they're marketing materials from the film's press kit. That's why there's no author listed. The lack of an author does not prevent the source from qualifying as reliable. We use AP wire stories pretty regularly around here; those don't have listed authors, either. The section of WP:V you're quoting as 'proof' that unattributed publications are inherently unusable as sources says that the author (and/or publisher) must be cited to avoid plagiarism, not so that we can attribute every statement on Wikipedia to an individual human. As I said above, when an author is not listed, the publisher should be used instead. The Publisher, in this case, is Paramount Pictures. The notes, along with numerous production stills and other information, were posted to Rotten Tomatoes by frequent contributor and freelance film journalist Jeff Giles, not a member of the 'user base'.[2] And Rotten Tomatoes is only one of several film review sites where the notes have been posted.

This discussion is not about an 'official name.' I'm not suggesting that we move the article to Clover (monster). So I don't know why you're throwing around accusations of Original Research. -- Vary | Talk 17:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Right now, the page name "Cloverfield" refers to the movie, and (creature) shows that this is a page for information on the creature. Clover is not an official name, and cannot be used as one. To use it is original research, because you would have found uncited unauthored information and claimed that it is the name of the creature, when the owner of the material never uses anything but creature. "frequent contributor and freelance film journalist" And yet it does not have his signature. As you stated before, it has been posted on other websites. By your own admission, he did not create it, or we cannot assume that he did. You cannot prove that the publisher is Paramount Pictures. Any assumptions on the matter are Original Research. If you want to say its name is Clover, there must be an official press release or an official quotation by one of the studio heads, producers, or the director for that. That is the basis of verifiability. The rest is fan speculation or rumor. Hearsay is not admissible in Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And I think it is beneath you to try and claim that this document from a website without any author listed nor any official markings is some how equivalent to the Associated Press. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And I must note, from reading the link, he is a blogger. He is not a legitimate news source. This is the equivalent of a fan site. Please Vary, why would you try to conflate the two? This lacks any credibility as a proper and verifiable source. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine Rima. My above comment (begining with "curious") was written at the same time as yours, so I posted it without having read your input; you just beat me to the save button :) -Verdatum (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that the source was 'some how equivalent to the Associated Press'; I said that listing a specific author is not a requirement for a source to be considered reliable (one of your primary arguments against including this text), and I gave an example of a common source that doesn't list authors. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

"Clover is not an official name, and cannot be used as one." I specifically said that that's exactly what I wasn't was suggesting. The way you're talking you'd think I was arguing in favor of beginning the article "Clover is a monster that first appeared in..."

"And yet it does not have his signature. As you stated before, it has been posted on other websites. By your own admission, he did not create it, or we cannot assume that he did." Exactly: if we could assume that he created it himself, that would make it a hoax. We can assume that he didn't: he just posted it, as did numerous other reliable online film sites. There are blogs, and then there are blogs; not everyone who publishes content online is 'just a blogger.' My source for the 'claim' that Paramount published these notes is a reliable online film site, one of several which publish them as the production notes distributed to the media. In the same article, Giles provided a large number of (clearly authentic) new production stills that came in the same press kit. And then there's the fact that a large amount of information first seen in the production notes has since been widely quoted in the media; that's because that's what the information was compiled for; to help members of the media write their articles about the film. You seem to be implying that this document is a hoax perpetuated by a conspiracy between a several different online film sites. That's clearly not the case. -- Vary | Talk 19:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the Associated Press is an exception because it is a highly respected and very trusted group. Most of their stories do have authors, and I have rarely ever seen one without an attribution, and even then they report who stated it. Now, for this point: "The way you're talking you'd think I was arguing in favor" You actually reverted it to say that. You even stated the following: "I don't know about the rest of the text that was removed as 'unreferenced specuation', but this is backed up by the production notes." I do not believe the fault here would be in my understanding, as you make it clear that you believe in information presented was verifiable and correct, although it lacked proper attribution and was found on a blog. If you do not believe me, please look here: "OFFICIAL WEBSITE http://www.jefitoblog.com" He is a blogger like all the other "critics" who is given a personal page on rottentomatoes. These are users. These are not verifiable and independent film critics who cite proper sources and are regarded as credible people. There is no source for where it came from. There is no verification for his information. It is a blog, and it does not meet verifiability. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Deindenting. Per Wikipedia policy, a source does not have to have a listed author to be reliable. Plain and simple.

"Now, for this point: "The way you're talking you'd think I was arguing in favor (you snipped me here, but I continued ...of beginning the article "Clover is a monster that first appeared in...")" You actually reverted it to say that."

Did I really? Please show the diff where I reverted the article to begin "Clover is a monster that first appeared in...", or stop misrepresenting my argument.

Having the word 'blog' in your personal web site does not instantly eliminate your credibility. Yes, there are a number of critics who are featured on Rotten Tomatoes regularly, but they don't hand out those accounts to any old person who wants to sign up, so you really can't call them 'users.' There is a separate class of account for users. This is what their profile page looks like. Compare with what you get when you click on Giles's name. Completely different type of account.

But at any rate, as I've already said, even if Giles was "just a blogger" (he's not), and even if he'd was the only person who'd posted them (he isn't), it is clear that these production notes are not a hoax. They've been referred to and used in many major media articles. Quotes and information that appeared online in that document first soon after began popping up in articles all over the place. There's no reason to believe that the document isn't legit, which is why so many reputable film sites are publishing them with no qualification or doubts about their authenticity. So the argument is, frankly, pointless. -- Vary | Talk 20:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, please don't use ref tags on talk pages. Talk pages don't have reference sections, so the tagging is useless and makes it harder to find the information you're trying to provide. -- Vary | Talk 20:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Per Wikipedia policy, a source does not have to have a listed author to be reliable. Plain and simple." Actually, a source must have an author or another attributory note to allow determination of its authenticity and verifiability. Otherwise, anything on any website could be claimed as proof. Please read verifiability: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Blogs are not reliable nor is there a reputation for fact-checking. Without any source information to claim who wrote those notes, nor any authorship mentioned, there is no ability to determine that. I would ask you to now refrain from talking in such a condescending manner. You have not verified any of your claims, nor have you backed them up with legitimate, documented proof. I believe that you are acting in this manner because you are falling under WP:OWN. Assuming good faith would have lasted long, but you are starting to go beyond the limitations of it. The Wikipedia policies are very blatant in this area: "Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism". Author and publisher. We don't know who either is, nor is there a credible source to back up such. This has been made obvious clear many times. Why do you persist? Why are you treating this personally? Why do you claim you don't care and yet continue to repost the same arguments that contradict Wikipedia's language? How do you know Giles is not a blogger? Do you know him personally? Are you Giles? You seem personally invested. I would ask for you to remove yourself if you are, since you would be too biased to discuss this issue properly. It does not meet Wikipedia's standards. Even Rotten Tomatoes calls it a blog, and he calls himself a blogger. Its a home page. From Wikipedia: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article" He does not meet that. There is no proof that he is an expert. There is only evidence that his blog has written a lot, but nothing to back up his claims to that piece. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

" Please show the diff where I reverted the article to begin "Clover is a monster that first appeared in...", or stop misrepresenting my argument." [3] You added: "The creature, nicknamed "Clover" by the production crew, was designed by artist Neville Page.". That is what my criticism is, and that is where you added the source in question. Sorry, but you obviously did this, and this was obviously pointed out above. I will assume Good Faith and believe that you forgot that you did this, even though I pointed out above. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There is some pronoun confusion going on here. It is causing both of you to misinterpret eachother. It's not that anyone forgot anything, you are both just talking about two different things. I reccomend taking care when invoking phrases like "I will assume Good Faith", as in certain contexts, it can come off as condescending. -Verdatum (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

That diff does not show what you've been claiming it does, Ottava. You quoted my statement that I was not suggesting treating 'Clover' as on official name or beginning the article with "Clover is...", and then stated that that was exactly what I was doing. Clearly, per the diff you provided, it wasn't, so kindly don't suggest otherwise.

You say that Rotten Tomatoes refers to the article as a blog. I don't see that anywhere, unless you're thinking of the 'Blog Article' convenience link which allows registered users to link to articles by Rotten Tomatoes critics in their personal blogs.

You've already changed tactics here more than once. First the information (which had been in the article, in another place, for a long while) was 'unsourced fan speculation'. Then, when I added a citation, you reverted me with the edit summary that the document "lists no use of the term "clover" and only "cloverfield".", and scolded me to "verify claims before placing them." And now you've decided that the source, which has been in the article for some time and is cited in several other places, is 'Unverifiable' and not acceptable as a source. And you're accusing me of being 'personally invested'? Aren't you the one who yesterday felt the need to circumvent a 3RR block to revert this article, and who posted a diatribe to the noticeboard accusing me of being a sock puppet? Have you ever heard of projection? If anyone needs to 'remove themselves', it's not me. -- Vary | Talk 22:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you just gave reason why you are acting in that way. It clearly states that you believe the document does name the creature as "Clover". You sided with the document, which was my original claim. I have only claimed that the uncited information in that document is unverifiable, because the others are from actual quotations. Please, before you claim that other people are performing such acts, please do not attempt to mislead about your own actions, then outright misconstrue what others have stated. You followed me to another page. I am wondering if you have actually broken WP:STALK as of now. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I will, unlike you, assume good faith and ask you the following questions: 1. Why did you revert something back to stating that the creature was called "Clover" and then deny that you thought the creature was named clover and deny that you placed it into the introduction? 2. Why would you claim that the item is "verifiable" when there is no actual author cited on the document nor source of origin for it? 3. Why would you follow me between multiple threads and delete things on another thread which had an exact source, and then claim that this one is verifiable? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I get it, you're 'assuming good faith.' Good for you. I guess I'm not a sock puppet after all, then?

1. I didn't. I made a specific statement about what kind of change I was not suggesting. You disagreed with that statement and 'backed it up' with a diff to a completely different change. "The creature, nicknamed 'Clover' by the production crew" midway through the intro $\neq$ "Clover is a monster..." as the first words of the first sentence. The former is a minor detail. The latter is a major change to the article that would not be backed up by source I'm using if it were engraved on JJ Abrams's ass. Misrepresenting an opponent's argument as one that's easier to refute is disingenuous, and that's what you're doing by claiming that I'm asserting that the creature's Proper Name is Clover based on the words "the monster (affectionately known simply as “Clover” inhouse)" from the document.
2. Lack of an author doesn't matter, source and origin are documented.
3. I noticed - prior to all of this nonsense - that you were engaging in a silly dispute with an editor who I've dealt with before and whose work I respect. I weighed in on that discussion. That is not stalking. Up until that point, you and I had had only the most passing contact, so you have no reason to think - and no right to imply - that my contribution on that article was retaliatory. The source was not the problem with the disputed content on Treaty of Tripoli, and your decision to compare the two discussions as if they show hypocrisy on my part again suggest to me that this dispute is not about WP:V, but about hurt feelings.

"I have only claimed that the uncited information in that document is unverifiable, because the others are from actual quotations." I'm not sure I'm following you here. Anything in the document that was placed in quotes and attributed to a specific person passes WP:V, and anything that wasn't, doesn't? Is that what you mean? -- Vary | Talk 23:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not declare that you were a sock puppet until you started throwing accusations of such at me for agreeing with over two others in a thread. 1. "what kind of change I was not suggesting. You disagreed with that statement and 'backed it up' with a diff to a completely different change." Actually, that is not what happened at all. The topic was this: "Production notes 'not verifiable'?". I spoke on the topic. Stop trying to change the topic. It was clearly only about the production notes and my removing of them as not being verifiable to speak on the naming of the creature. Please, this is obvious. Why are you trying to claim otherwise? 2. Following one user to another page and then editing it because you feel the user is editing in a certain way is the very definition of WP:STALK. As an Admin, you should know better. But instead, you are accusing me of "hurt" feelings. Seeing as how you have misconstrued the whole argument in 1, only verifies my current claim. The fact that you felt the need to follow me to another page shows that you might have crossed the line. You have also removed verifiable information on another thread without any due cause. An admin would know better than that. I ask you to kindly cease and desist, because you have become personally involved. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, "I will, unlike you, assume good faith" seems to assume, in bad faith, that the person is not assuming good faith. I perceive such language to be invoking "good faith" for the primary purpose of seeming 'holier than thou'; which by extension, I percieve to be rather petty. I could be wrong, I just thought you'd like to know what it looks like as a 3rd party reading this thread. From what I see, Vary is just trying to improve the article and work out the justifications. Once again, from my perspective, you seem to be the one trying to make things personal. Back to discussing the content of the article, could you please be so kind as to aknowledge that Vary merely added the fact that the monster was referred to in production as "clover" and that she does not mean to imply that this sobriquet (nickname) has any baring on the official or actual name of the creature. She's felt the need to repeat this quite a few times, and were I in her position, I probably would too. I suspect I'm just reading your posts wrong, but you seem to be bringing up unrelated arguments. She thinks/thought the source was valid, you think it isn't. That's really all there is to this argument.

Vary, I believe Ottava is justified in his concern about the source. Unless you can prove how the official presskit came to be on rotten tomatoes, or get the production company to somehow 'bless' the content (in a verifiable manner of course), it may not be ready for WP just yet.

Both of you, issues like WP:STALK should be discussed on your user talk pages or delt with through proper channels. This area is for the discussion of the article. Most importantly, be sure to get the The Last Word (or at least read that article. It's a nice lighthearted break from this thread). -Verdatum (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A response to: "Back to discussing the content of the article, could you please be so kind as to aknowledge that Vary merely added the fact that the monster was referred to in production as "clover" and that she does not mean to imply that this sobriquet (nickname) has any baring on the official" All I ever stated is that I complained about her use of a source. I removed a source that wasn't verifiable. In retaliation, she went to another page that I edited and removed four sources, two by some of the most prestigious publishing houses in the world, and claimed they were not verifiable and joined in a revert war there to provoke me. As other Admin agree, the sources were verifiable and could not be construed to be removed. As an Admin, Vary knows that Random House and Oxford University Press are legitimate sources. I stand by the fact that the "production notes" cannot be claimed as a verifiable source. They do not meet any of the actual standards for verifiability. I have stated this time after time and have emphasized only this. However, Vary has attempted to claim that I am arguing about other things. I am not. She has gone so far to say that I do not know what a verifiable source is and that I have to be a sockpuppet. Such things do not belong in Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Results of second opinions on Production Notes

We've had two threads on the matter, at WP:FILM and the RS Noticeboard. Three uninvolved parties at WP:FILM expressed support of the source. The only uninvolved contributor who weighed in at the other thread expressed some concerns, especially about the lack of an author. I followed up about the authorship on both threads: no third-party response on RS (after almost 24 hours). One response on the WP:Film thread saying that it's not unusual for these documents to have no author and acceptable to leave the author field blank, adding that press releases frequently don't list an author, either. The question was only posed on wp:film a little while ago, so there may well be more responses there, but I think the RS thread may be dead. So what do we think? -- Vary | Talk 18:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As the document has now gained further support at the RS noticeboard, as well as at wp:film, I think the source has been determined to be sound, and I'm going to re-add the information if there are no other objections. -- Vary | Talk 03:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

By further support, you mean only one additional person, who is also a new person without much experience? You are definitely stretching it. You also posted it in an area which is not suitable for reviews over sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

By further support, I mean strong positive responses in two different threads, on the rs noticeboard and at the relevant wikiproject. -- Vary | Talk 14:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

By further support, you mean no one actually speaking on the document according to actually seeing the document, context, or the rest, and only one person out of three agreeing with you on the other? If so, then you are right. However, it does not seem like consensus is on your side of the document's side. If Paramount released it, it would be at Paramount's website. Notice how no actual newspaper or verifiable news source uses the "Clover" nickname by mysterious crew members, and notice also that the nick name of the crew would also be equivalent to the nickname by fans. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the RFC, that seems like the appropriate action at this point. But Ottava, it's not uncommon for production crews to have nicknames for monsters and major props and such (especially unnamed ones; if I were to guess, I'd say I'm thinking of Alien). I'm afraid I can't provide specific references I've heard it in a couple DVD bonus feature tracks and they sorta mush together. But yeah, getting to the point, just because release notes say it is used by the crew doesn't mean anyone would bother to report on that fact, It's just not interesting enough to mention unless you're writting something like a fanguide, or this article, or a "collector's edition" type DVD. If the resource is legitimate, it is a more noteworthy fact than just a fan nickname and would be worthwhile to mention here. Further, you can't really argue "If Paramount released it, it would be at Paramount's website"; that does not have to be the case. Though I admit, I should certainly think they would do things that way, and the fact that it isn't on their website does indeed raise some pretty obvious concerns. -Verdatum (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Verdatum, the WP:OR rule would nullify any attempt to claim that nicknames are legitimate in some way, that they have the right to nick name, or that the nick name belongs in a Wikipedia page. You need a third party legitimate source to back that up (both claims, the nick name and the claim of "clover" as a nick name). I see neither. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Granted, production notes are not an independent source, but they are a secondary source. So I don't believe it is an issue of WP:OR. I'm not sure who "they" is refering to in terms of "the right to nick name" or what the right to nickname is exactly, and I don't understand what you mean by "both claims, the nick name and the claim of 'clover' as a nick name", that sounds like a single claim to me. If you want a proper rebuttal, could you please clarify? Thanks. -Verdatum (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know one way or the other about "Alien", Verdatum, but "Jaws" is the first example that comes to my mind: the crew nicknamed the shark "Bruce" after Speilberg's lawyer. -- Vary | Talk 17:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As it turns out (I only just hit on the right google keywords), the fact is also mentioned in an MTV interview with Robert Stahl-David.[4] 'We did, however, learn that the monster is not named in the movie ("We took to calling it Clover ... when the movie comes out, people are gonna name it.")' I can use that instead: more is usually better where sources are concerned. But I do think that the issue of the reliability of the notes needs to be firmly settled, as the disputed content is not the only information in the article that's sourced to those notes. -- Vary | Talk 18:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Your quote states that it doesn't have an official name. Thus, "Clover" could only be used in the context of it being stated blatantly that there isn't an official name. Remember, a star is not the creator nor is authorized to establish such things. If Wikipedia allowed trivia sections, that quote could easily be used for one. This quote verifies what I have stated: "We did, however, learn that the monster is not named in the movie" Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, didn't mean to derail the discussion there. As I said in my previous comment, regardless of the new source for the information, we still need to settle the matter of the production notes - which, need I remind everyone, are still used four times in the article. Are the production notes acceptable as a source, or do those statements need to be removed? -- Vary | Talk 05:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As I stated before, the quotations from the director and the producer in your document are quoted in other sources, so it doesn't matter what source you use to attribute to them. However, it is probably best not to link to a document file which performs a download. My only concern before was unattributed items. The attributed quotes could have been denied by Abrams et al later. However, who could deny vague statements not put in quotes? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We are attempting to determine here if the document is a reliable source. We can not approve this source to be used only to cite direct quotes from individuals. Either the entire document is reliable, or it's not. And at any rate, not every statement in the article sourced to that document is a direct quote.

It's completely acceptable to link to media other than HTML and plaintext pages. -- Vary | Talk 15:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The document is not a reliable source, but that doesn't mean the quotes in the document are not a reliable source. An author may be completely insane and quote Kennedy and claim he meant that we should eat babies, but that does not de-legitimize Kennedy's words within the quote or mean they are not verifiable. Please, if you cannot understand that, then I think you need to reread Wikipedia:Verifiable. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen it acceptable to link to document files that have to be downloaded, or link to any media that has to be downloaded. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't? Well, I have. See the MoS. I would think that if it were such an issue, it would have come up in one of the two discussion of the source we've just completed. And if .doc files weren't allowed, why would we have a special template just for identifying them in external link lists? If it bothers you that much, there are html versions of the document that we can use instead, but per the MoS, rich media is appropriate under many circumstances. If the source is found reliable, the format is certainly not going to be enough to sink it.

Your comment about misinterpreting quotes is, frankly, off-point. If the document is 'unreliable', it doesn't matter if a statement is in quotes or not; all parts of the document are equally suspect. You appear to be assuming that any quotes in the document are entirely accurate, but that anything that isn't in quotes is not. Since you appear to be in the distinct minority about the verifiability of the document, it may not matter - we'll have to see what kind of discussion (if any) is generated by the rfc - but your apparent insistence that every statement sourced to this document is acceptable except the one you've been edit warring over is puzzling. -- Vary | Talk 02:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, you seem to be holding tightly to this concept of the right to nickname (I refer to the part above where you mention "authorized to establish such things"). I'm still very confused by this. If we use the quote "We took to calling it Clover ... when the movie comes out, people are gonna name it." then we can make the claim that "members of the production crew took to refering to the monster as 'clover'." Such a claim does not go on to claim or suggest that it was an official designation or that it was universal among production. If you wish to clarify such a claim with "some members of the production crew took to refering to the monster with the unofficial nickname of 'clover'" or some such icetreading, I don't think anyone has a problem with it; though I think it's unnessisary. I also don't understand why you feel this would only be appropriate for a trivia section. Could you please try and explain why the blessing of the nickname is so important? -Verdatum (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Verdatum - "I'm still very confused by this." This is not IMDB. This is not an encyclopedia with trivia information. A nickname by an uncertain group of people is not encyclopedic. The actors don't have a right to name the creature just like the fans do not. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you said that. I was hoping you could expand on this justification, as I'm not sure I agree. I'm afraid I know of no such thing as a "right to name". "Trivia" means "insignificant trifles of little importance, especially items of unimportant information". I don't think the fact is insignifigant; it is documented and it is relavent to the production. Likewise, if it were the case that a billion fans referred to the creature as 'Bananarama' and a reputable source wrote an article explaining that this is what people have been calling the thing, it would also be perfectly appropriate to include in this article. The measurement of importance of information is subjective, and as such, the term 'trivia' should be used carefully. I agree, per WP:TRIVIA, random collections of trivia are not appropriate for WP, but cited facts that can be worked into the body of an article are entirely appropriate. If you know of a policy, guideline, or decent essay that states otherwise, please link me. -Verdatum (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree. The right to give the creature a 'real' name lies with the creators and producers of the film and/or any future sequels. A nickname is not a real name. Nicknames are inherently unofficial, so it makes no sense to say that any group doesn't have the 'right' to nickname anything.. Any body of people has the right to give the creature an informal name among themselves. -- Vary | Talk 18:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion here appears to have stagnated, and the RFC hasn't drawn any fresh eyes, but I really don't think there can be any question anymore about the reliability of the source. I know I'm just inviting more attacks on my counting skills by saying this, but between the three attempts at dispute resolution, we've only managed to get five outsiders to weigh in, and four of those five expressed unqualified support. I honestly think we're done here. -- Vary | Talk 05:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, removing the rfc. Didn't mean to be away for so long. -- Vary | Talk 16:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Rolling back

Due to the addition of original research since the AFD ended, I've revert to a cited revision. However, there may be some issues to fix again like the "name" of the creature. We should revert original research whenever possible, as it's totally inappropriate for this encyclopedia. It should exist as little as possible to show readers that citations are necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The worst OR-ishness seemed to be the section "Possible Origins" (where did that come from and how did I miss it?) and a few chunks from "Character design." I've removed the bits from the previous revision that look suspicious to me; I think that's be easier than trying to dig out and reinstate the productive changes from intervening revisions. Better? Did I miss anything? -- Vary | Talk 19:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page archive

at 85,337 bytes in last revision, I'd like to archive old sections of this talk page per WP:ARCHIVE. I'd archive everything prior to the section "Production notes 'not verifiable'?". Any objections? -Verdatum (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I don't think any of those discussions are still active. -- Vary | Talk 17:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is done. -Verdatum (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Mother of all Bombs" citation

I looked up the link justifying the line "It apparently can withstand the United States military's "Mother of All Bombs". It seems to be entirely speculation. There is no mention in the film of a "mother of all bombs" or "MOAB" The only mention of it is from this guy's brother. Surely that's not grounds for inclusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptoatsy (talk • contribs) 19:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I think the primary problem there may be that the source doesn't back up the claim that the monster survived the attack. As I understand it, the main clue that the monster survived is 'radio static' at the end of the film which needs to be played backwards to get the message "It's still alive." That's very woolly. -- Vary | Talk 20:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The implication is that the monster survived the final bombing attack, (as per the line "It's still alive"). My issue is the proposition that a particular bomb was used; i.e the "MOAB". There's just no grounds to suggest any specific bomb was used in the final attack. - And I've forgotton how to sign my post - it's been a while since I did this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptoatsy (talk • contribs) 20:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but isn't the line 'it's still alive' only audible when the radio static is played backwards? Like I said, rather woolly. And you sign with four tildes. :)

I see now what you mean about 'some guy's brother,' but as this info dates from a thoroughly fact-checked revision that was made during the AFD, I'd like to wait and see if anyone who participated in those checks weighs in. -- Vary | Talk 20:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I was involved in a lot of that cleanup during the AFD. Just because people took the time to remove all the uncited material they could find doesn't mean we did a perfect job. I'd hardly consider our efforts as "thoroughly fact-checked". If the reference is not a reliable source and has no reputable evidence, then the claim that it was a MOAB is speculation and doesn't belong. For awhile this article claimed it was a nuclear device, and then something like "sub-nuclear device" or such nonsense. At one point I changed it to "...and other heavy ordnance" I'd much rather see something generic like that then some speculation pretending to be reputable. -Verdatum (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. Fine by me. -- Vary | Talk 21:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

All gone. I left the reference itself, because while he qualifies the MOAB reference with the link to the statement by 'some guy's brother', he's much more definite about the other weapons he mentions. -- Vary | Talk 21:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me - the rest of the specific weaponary could be recognised by someone in the know, since it's actually seen during the film - Personaly, I'm not in the know, but I'm happy to accept that someones knows what it is. Cptoatsy (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Played backwards? I don't know - Personally I missed it myself - I'd left the cinema by then! But I understand the line is fairly well documented. As for the inclusion of the citation in the "fact checked revision" - fair enough - although, just because someone wrote it somewhere, shouldn't constitute reliable research IMO. - But I take your point. And thanks with the reminder on signing! ;) Cptoatsy (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, we don't have a reference on the backward message yet, so that claim was excluded from this article as classic original research. -Verdatum (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Size yet again

The article currently claims that 107 meters / 350 feet as the given size of the creature is mentioned by the production notes from rottentomatoes. I can't find it in this reference. Further, it starts a group of sentences that go back to the old Original Research issues. If it can be confirmed that the size isn't in there, can we just remove that block (everything prior to "although 'just a baby'")? -Verdatum (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed along with the last of the other OR-like additions from the last six hours.

I think we may need a commented out warning for that section about not adding size information without a source. I don't think we have any reference to the creature's size that's any more specific than 'gigantic.' -- Vary | Talk 17:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the movie it seemed to be about 350 feet tall. That seems correct. They said a 25 story tall monster. In Manhattan an average storey is 12 to 14 feet tall, making Clover somewhere in between 300-350 feet tall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.94.105 (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That may be true, but that is WP:SYN, a form of Original Research which doesn't belong in the article. -Verdatum (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a commented warning is that beneficial. In my experience, the type of person who adds unsourced information like that is the same type of person to never bother reading those warnings, no matter how loudly underlined and capitalized they may be. I have no problem reverting unsourced information as it occurs. -Verdatum (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, true dat. -- Vary | Talk 18:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Dark hyena, in response to your edit comment, "Reverted unwarranted info removal. How is the creature's appearance OR?"; Your description is coming from what you saw on the screen. What you saw will differ from what someone else saw. This is because you are reporting from a primary resource. An encyclopedia ideally should only use secondary resources, in this case, articles about the creature. Consensus on WP has come to be that it is acceptable to use primary sources in the case of fiction, but only to an extent. It's fine for occurances that are inarguable, but this is a description of a creature that you purposefully don't get to see very much. When we previously had similar physical descriptions on this page, they were getting changed multiple times per day because people couldn't agree what animal some particular feature was like, or how many legs the creature had, etc. The easiest solution to all of this is to dissallow it altogether as Original Reserach per WP guidelines. If you find an article by a reputable authority on the subject describing the creature as bat-like or whatever, you can say that, and give a reference. If it's not by an authority on the topic, but still a good reference you can put something along the lines of "noted critic Roger Ebert described the creature as being similar in appearance to the Oscar-Meyer Weinermobile" and then cite a reference. But uncited stuff just causes edit wars. -Verdatum (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As there's been no response here to the above concerns, I'm re-removing the material. The creature's appearances on-screen are too fleeting and unclear for us to describe it based on what we saw in the theatre, as the arguments over the details show. -- Vary | Talk 05:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in reply. I think deletion of the size and description info is a strange course to take, considering I was only describing aspects of the creature which were clearly seen.

• We know it is aquatic, because we know from the movie's beginning and repeated mentions by the producers that it came from the sea.

• We know it was grey, as shown in the scene in which it chomps on a helicopter and on Hudson. Both scenes take place in broad daylight.

• We know it was a quadruped, as shown again by the helicopter devouring scene.

• Redd membranes are clearly visible in the Hudson eating scene.

• I don't need to explain what scene show's the disproportionately long forearms, as it is plain to see in all shots of the creature.

• The second pair of arms are shown in the Hudson eating scene.

• By the fact that it eats Hudson, I think it's safe to conclude it was not a vegetarian.

• Again with the Helicopter comping scene; A rudder-like tail is plain to see.

• The creature's size is given in the "Baby" interview by the director himself.

Anything else is I agree, pure speculation.Dark hyena (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The film is just not a good primary source for physical descriptions. As I said before, the past arguments over the details of the creature's physical appearance show that not everyone interpreted the glimpses they got of the creature in the same way. The color, for example: by the time we see him in daylight, he's been getting bombed, shot at, and covered by the dust from all the buildings he's been knocking over for hours. How do we know he wasn't just very, very dirty? And he didn't 'eat' Hud; he picked him up in his mouth, chewed on him, and spat most of him back out. He's a baby. Babies put everything in their mouths. That doesn't prove that he's not carnivorous, but we don't know that he is, either.

I think for a lot of this, we may have to wait until we get our hands on the inevitable special edition DVD extras. But there's a lot of published stuff out there right now; I'd try seeing what you can find in secondary sources. -- Vary | Talk 20:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

well, i agree with DH. all of that is obvious. maybe the baby thing is true about how babies do put everything into their mouths, but Clover seriously does not look like a vegetarian. oh, and could DH please post the interview giving the height of the monster? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.94.105 (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Here it is...

I mean, to take something as ridiculous as a 350ft monster attack on New York and try to depict it with a level of realism is sort of strange but that was the fun of it, and that to me was a real challenge.-http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/8783/press_conference_report_matt_reeves_director_of_cloverfield.html Dark hyena (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

thank you. i appreciate it and do believe that in the character description we should mention everything u posted above. 199.44.20.156 (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, the size is described as 350ft, which is more specific than a measurement in building stories, and the reference sounds reasonable to me. Hopefully, barring a more official and exact measurement surfacing, this will be the end of it. -Verdatum (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the Clover toy(the one with Clover next to the building) you can see that Clover is about 17 stories tall, and a storie is usually about 11 to 12 feet tall, so Clover would about 187ft to 204 ft tall.SoundBlast (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Description Change?

i watched the cloverfield thread on a forum for a while, and it has some speculation that might be worth including like this:

"I saw it! It's a lion! It's huge!"), a whale(due to it being from the water), or possibly even Ralph the Wolf from Rampage. After seeing the film or pictures of the monster, some 

"Prior to the films release, it was speculated that the monster may have been a gigantic lion(according to the linehave likened it to the Rancor from Star Wars."

i'm not saying it SHOULD be included, but its just my opinion, and only as a side note or reference. 71.128.151.25 (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The part about the lion can be attributed. In one of the interviews with the director that is already being cited as a resources he says something like it was his voice saying the line and he thought it was odd that people thought he said it was a lion. Does it belong here? Dunno maybe. The rest of it, I'd want to see a similar independent resource commenting upon it. -Verdatum (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Although i'm not entirely positive, i am fairly sure that the phrase from the film was not :"I saw it! It's a lion! It's huge" but rather :"I saw it! It's alive! It's huge" as a way of determining that the threat is in fact a living creature. Also, due to the extensive viral marketing campaign used to promote the film, many people were incited to create their own versions of the Cloverfield creature out of curiosity, which led to several online competitions being launched, as a way of finding whoever could imagine an appropriate creature based on the roars, shapes and glimpses of the creature seen in previews (as well as the damage caused by it's rampage, to determine it's approximate size and stature) because the roar heard by the audience which stemmed from the creature resembled quite a plaintive "moan" of sorts, it led to beliefs that the creature "sang" in a manner similiar to whales, which placed new ideas on "Clover's" possible physical shape. Many fans of JJ Abram's work believed that the Cloverfield creature would be inspired by the director's previous ideas, as well as his previous inspirations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TøM (talk • contribs) 20:48, 19 February 2008

Your first sentence is correct, it is verified in the interview I mentioned above (I believe the one from comingsoon.net, but too lazy to confirm). I'm afraid I don't understand your point though. You seem to be presenting nothing more than original research and unverifiable information that is not suitable content for Wikipedia. If I'm mistaken could you please clarify? -Verdatum (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, although i wanted to clarify some ideas about how so many possible designs of the creature may exist, i'm afraid i got a little carried away in the process. My previous argument is merely a repercussion of the ideas already presented on this page written into a different context, which was not particularly necessary. I simply believed that, due to this page being an area of discussion, my argument would also have a correct place in it. although, i am mistaken so please ignore or dismiss any unneeded statements in my previous paragraph. thank you. --TøM (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Something I Don't Get...

It says that the creature was here a couple thousand years and was growing then. But...at the end of the movie it shows something crash into the ocean. 68.145.77.173 (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Right on both counts. What crashed into the ocean is a piece of a Tagruato satellite. Either that itself or Tagruato's searching for it agitated the monster.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 06:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that from the Cloverfield manga? Is it already out? Is it a series or one book?68.145.77.173 (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The picture...

...just doesn't look right to me. I've seen the movie and a bunch of videos on youtube showing footage of the monster (I have no idea how those got there). The image, while it may be from a trailer or whatever, just isn't it. I'm just saying that since its not right, shouldn't it be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.38.178 (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. That was the scene right before they duck into the subways, if I remember correctly. DurinsBane87 (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh whoops, my bad, I hadn't seen the trailer before I posted that and I managed to forget that bit. But I swear it had more teeth in the scene where it killed Hud. I know it's from a different angle and all, but it just looks too different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.5.137 (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

that picture...

...it is not right. The close-up of the monster at the end is different. Proof of two monsters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.158.29 (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You're seeing it from two completely different angles. At the end you see it from directly above, and you only see it's mouth open from that angle for a split second. The picture in the article is from the side. DurinsBane87 (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the film itself is very fast-paced, so the glimpses of the monster are rushed. because, in general, the film was never meant to be paused so that some precise moments could be studied, the production crew probably thought something along the lines of : "the scenes of the monster are fast and quite blurred, so people aren't really going to see much. the monster doesn't have to be perfectly detailed in each scene, it would me harder and more costly to make every angle of the monster perfectly adapted to the others". it's a simple possibility. not all departments of filmmaking are spotless.--TøM (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

need more theories about origin

I saw the film once. It seemed the monster attacked the helicopter seconds after its limbs were blown off by bombs. What is this, a spontaneously regenerative organism - designed by genetic engineering perhaps? We need to discuss theories about the monster's origin and what the filmakers are trying to make us think about.75.119.34.155 (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, those are things we DON'T do on this site. DurinsBane87 (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall his limbs being completely blown off, I remember the military bombarding his back with missiles and the smoke covering him completely. I'm not accusing you of lying, I would just like someone to clear this up for me.--Kondrayus (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not really the appropriate place for this sort of discussion. This seems to be a request for speculation or interpretation of purposefully confusing video footage. This is a place for discussion of the article and using reliable resources to improve the article. For general discussion of the movie, there are plenty of websites that are more appropriate. -Verdatum (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be anything wrong with theories or information which isn't original research. Surely people are discussing the monster's meaning and perhaps the creators of the film have divulged some infomation about it or at least discussed what they were trying to imply or suggest.Markemory (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an obtuse movie which is meant to make us ponder, and it's silly to say we shouldn't report on speculation about the monster's meaning which goes to the heart of making any sort of critical interpretation of the film.Markemory (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can find reliable reputable independent secondary sources reporting on such fan speculation per WP:RS, then it might be suitable here. otherwise, it is still technically a form of original research. If you can find resources from the creators of the film where they have "divulged some information about it or at least discussed what they were trying to imply or suggest" then it is very likely suitable to mention here. That is precisely what maintainers of this article have been trying to seek out. -Verdatum (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Check it out

This is a pretty interesting sketch, the website said it was official. [[Image:http://bp1.blogger.com/_0Ci5St96ygw/R42wSurgGQI/AAAAAAAAAFY/dlyNcYr45gE/s1600-h/cloverfieldsketch2043.jpg] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiaoxiaoman9 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 7 February 2008