Talk:Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 June 2019 and 24 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cecybueso.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 14 January 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No move. There's no agreement that the 2019 film is primary topic. Cúchullain t/ c 16:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film) → Godzilla: King of the Monsters – The last time an RM discussion for this page took place back in 2019, editors were unable to decide whether Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film) or Godzilla, King of the Monsters! was the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Well, fast forward to today, and I think it's pretty clear that the 2019 film is the rightful primary topic, especially given the fact that it received 90,334 pageviews in the past 30 days while the 1956 film only received 7,723. While some editors in the previous RM argued that the exclamation point is not enough to distinguish the latter from the former, they seem to have overlooked the fact that there is a comma instead of a colon. If anything, the disambiguation page should be located at Godzilla King of the Monsters, without any punctuation marks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just want to point out that the last RM discussion ended with many "opposed" over those who "supported". I was ready to oppose this new one but now I have mixed feelings. Especially after reading WP:DPT. On the one hand, "(2019 film)" helps disambiguate the film from the 1956 film, but the 2019 article has gotten more traffic than the 1956 version. I wish to see more comments for better perspective to help me determine whether to support or oppose. Armegon (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The 2019 is not primary over all others combined. Keep all disambiguated to avoid incorrect wikilinks long-term. -- Netoholic @ 06:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by, if this page is moved Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film) will still redirect back to this page so present links will still work. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * When future editors want to link to one of the several works named Godzilla: King of the Monsters, they may incorrectly link to the film if the film is made primary. -- Netoholic @ 10:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The 2019 film is the ONLY work titled Godzilla: King of the Monsters, the others are all partial title matches. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: To add to what I said above: If a user was looking for the 2019 film, they would probably type in Godzilla: King of the Monsters or Godzilla King of the Monsters; on the contrary, if a user was looking for the 1956 film, they would probably type in Godzilla, King of the Monsters!, Godzilla, King of the Monsters, or Godzilla King of the Monsters ... but highly unlikely Godzilla: King of the Monsters. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There really is no point in a primary here which when all 4 pages have basically the same name and user's will very likely link to the incorrect one. A comma is not enough. It wouldn't surprise me if most people don't even use punctuation when they search for a title. Gonnym (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly why the disambiguation page should be moved to Godzilla King of the Monsters. I highly doubt anyone would type the title with a colon in the search bar and expect to find an article that has a comma instead. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - It probably might be too presumptuous of me to say, but it's possible some readers, or many for all I know, look up the film(s) as "godzilla king of the monsters 2019" or "godzilla king of the monsters 1956". So, the disambiguation helps readers find the article they want quicker, perhaps? Armegon (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose In this case, the disambiguation would be inadequate to avoid confusion.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

English
Sukriya sfhhghjhehhhghgfķmkvggdijvh 219.91.208.44 (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

CC BY SA
Godzilla king of the monster Hunter and Franklin and I other in their first innings and I other in their first innings other other other in their first innings other in their first innings and I other in their first innings other other other 56th other other 87th on the problem of how 69th on the problem of how 219.91.208.44 (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

"completely produced by a Hollywood studio"
Is it really so? Because Toho (Japan) and Wanda Qingdao Studios (China) are also credited as production studios with sources, yet the lead says "an American monster film". This must be rewritten in accordance with WP:FILMLEAD: "If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section". Kailash29792 (talk)  08:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This is a subject that I've been fighting over for a long time because the secondary sources have it all wrong but everyone wants to lazily follow the general consensus of WP:RSPRIMARY instead of treating this as its own unique case -- hence why the current version is as it is. This topic was brought up in 2020, in May and again in October and neither discussion went anywhere. I even started an RfC and it went nowhere too, I could never get a definitive consensus on this specific topic. I'm still of the mind of going with the billing credits: list Legendary Pictures as the sole production studio, per the billing. Armegon (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, that the secondary sources are incorrect as the primary sources mention Legendary as the only production company. I do not believe it is a violation of WP:PRIMARYSOURCE as it does not report BO info. Could we compromise by adding footnotes explaining the discrepancies? Kailash29792 (talk)  02:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes! I was thinking the exact same thing. I think the footnote should be added to the production studios column of the infobox. Armegon (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)