Talk:Gojira (band)/Archive 1

Old comments
Does anyone feel like making this article less POV-ish? I don't know enough about the band to do it, but right now it's terrible.

I agree, I don't know much about the band either, but this article left me none the wiser! It isn't written like an encyclopedia article, more like something you might find on the bands website.

Yeah, this is ridiculously POV. Someone please fix this Skullfission 03:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be because the bio is ripped word-for-word from the official website. However I really don't know enough about the band to write one myself...this should be fixed soon though. I might try and come up with something if nobody else does. Cloudy 11:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, never mind. I decided to just go ahead and remake the bio with what I know. I've also moved parts of the article around and added an infobox. Cloudy 11:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Language
I heard somewhere that the members of Gojira don't actually speak English, and are taught the English translation of their lyrics phonetically, is there any truth to this? Kingoomieiii (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * they speak english. you can hear their interviews on youtube, and although some of them (like the drummer) have ocassional language difficulties, the band overall speaks english fairly fluently, and their accents aren't that strong at all.  Itachi1452 (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See this 3 interviews. They have some lacks (the drummer has pretty big problems), but not all of them at all. Joe Duplantier is working with other musicians only in english (Cavalera Conspiracy) so no big problems at all. As you maight know french people have generally problems with english...-- Lykantrop (Talk) 11:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am woking on this--  LYKANTROP   12:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, after reading the article, I made some changes and I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a pleasure for me to write an article about such a band. I thank you for the review!--  LYKANTROP   11:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lykantrop's rewrite
Lykantrop, I appreciate your enthusiasm and willingness to improve articles but I really think the articles is not being improved. I'm very concerned about this article. I have checked most sources and I have noticed a lot is directly copy-pasted, reviewer's POV is introduced, sources are misused to back up original research, amateur reviews are used and valuable information is removed (and that's not all I'm concerned about).

I'm sorry but I'll have to revert/rewrite a lot of the changes you've made to make the article neutral and readable. Kameejl (Talk) 14:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but you just added lots of unsourced information. And you deleted my sourced information. I used only proffesional sites with text written only by website-stuff. Some of them even from recommended WikiProject Albums. Problems with formulation of sentences will be fixed. I don't undestand your edit, cause normally you make good edits, but this one looks like bad faith. If you think I used original research, please tell me on the talkpage before you edit it. I am trying to make it a GA article.   LYKANTROP   07:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of my concerns/changes:


 * I thought the changes made it more difficult to fluently read the article.
 * Chronological order was changed
 * Intro is not backed up by infobox and contains highly redundant info. (mainly introducing an unsourced genre and member info that was already mentioned 3 times throughout the article)
 * POV was introduced (needless superlatives like in "After the extraordinary success" or non-encyclopedic subjective terms as "The band plays a very "angular"...")
 * Using seasons (like "spring 1982") is deprecated as seasons are not the same for every country (Australia for example)
 * Wrongly sourced info and therefore OR ("The link is going in the same direction as Terra Incognita, but is more thrash-oriented." is not stated by the source)
 * The use of user reviews from prog archives.


 * I changed the order, of the text to make it more chronological, I've removed POV and redundant info, removed unencyclopedic content and citations and tweaked some text to make it more wikipedia compliant. Like I said, I appreciate your willingness to improve this article, but please keep in mind you're working on an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Kameejl (Talk) 09:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok I acknowledge that--  LYKANTROP   15:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also against introdicing of all the genres in the lead section. It is already in the infobox (exactly as it would be in the lead section) and it has its own section. The members do not have their instruments in infobox. See some other GAs Metallica, Lamb of God (band), Godsmack. Try to expand it please, not shorten.--  LYKANTROP   15:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On Gojira's Myspace (here) there is "And even though their influences may be drawn from the likes of Metallica, Meshuggah and Morbid Angel,". I didn't find anything about Tool or Death.--  LYKANTROP   16:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But generally - thanks for assistance --  LYKANTROP   16:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Was it your idea - the "see below for musical style" thing? If yes - very good idea man!--  LYKANTROP   17:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, the article is indeed improving, but I still see some quality issues:
 * "...and the usage of tribal drumming, which could be compared to "Roots"-era of Sepultura..." The sentence is absolutely not backed up by the source. The reviewer has never compared the use of tribal drums or any other trait to Sepultura, it might be your interpretation but the reviewer never said anything like it (I think it's OR). The reviewer only stated that "At times, the band reminds [him] of “Roots”-era SEPULTURA". I'll remove it.
 * The musical style section reads like a bunch of sentences copy-pasted from reviews. For the content to be reader friendly it should be more prose-like. I'll rewrite it.
 * So again a rewrite. Kameejl (Talk) 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree also with that, the structure is really excellent now, but some important things were unnecessarily shortened or even deleted. I think that those sentences describe also the differences between the single albums and the progress of Gojira's music during the years. Some of them describe their music and I don't know why did you leave them out.
 * I found "Death" and "Tool" on Myspace. It has a german sign "Einflüsse".--  LYKANTROP   11:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments Please, there is really no need to re-introduce these parts. I've reverted it. Kameejl (Talk) 13:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * where did you read the link is thrash metal-oriented? It wasn't written like that in the review. He clearly states it's his opinion.
 * Why do you insist on tribal drumming? Is there even tribal drumming on any of the albums?
 * Why copy-paste texts like "brought by stark riffing", it's POV and unencyclopedic.
 * Where did you read about "atmospheric progressive elements"? It wasn't written like that in the review.
 * MySpace is in an other language for each user (depending on coutry of origin)
 * "Gojira plays complex, progressive and richly textured" all POV.
 * I really would be glad if you revert only that, what is wrong. I repaired some of your wrong-formated refs and you reverted them too. You are giving me more work. So please revert only what is wrong and not every edit between the wrong one and the last one. I don't know what you want to say with your comments to MySpace.
 * "Gojira plays complex, progressive and richly textured" - I dont know what is POV about the words complex and richly textured. It is the same like "technical", "rhythmic", "precision", "unusual", "atmospheric", "progressive", "aggressive" or "melodic". Only what could be wrong is the word richly, which is non-neutral, but not POV. If it comes to Wiki-policies, please be exact and don't use the first one that comes to your mind. "Complex" is normal term as all the others are, richly textured should be rewritten to "frequently textured" or "plentiful textured" or "very textured" or just anything neutral.
 * Instead of "there is no need to re-introduce these parts" you should say "I have no need to re-introduce these parts". Maybe you don't, but I do. I just feel like you are fighting with me and are trying to enforce the article as you want it to be. But the article can always be improved in every aspect. "There is no need to" - is a wrong stance to Wikipedia.--  LYKANTROP   11:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I've reverted edits that were not supposed to be reverted. Because of the many sources (especialy the bloating cite template) the revision compare screen was pretty incomprehensible. I will try not to do that again. I've seen your new edits and again, I see thing that need to be improved. I'm sorry if I get on your nerves, but I'm not doing this to annoy you, I just want the article to be as good as the band is :). In fact, I'm happy you are so motivated to improve the article. So, what is it I think I can improve?:
 * "They also incorporate traditional instrumentation and tribal drumming." I'm a big fan of Gojira, I have been to their concerts, I have all their CDs, and I really can't match this sentence to Gojira.
 * What is traditional instrumentation? In heavy metal it's guitar, drums, etc. Or do you mean traditional instruments (see article)? Or do you mean instruments used in indigenous music? Whichever type of instrument you refer to, none are worth being mentioned in the article. It's obvious they use heavy metal instrumentation, and (please correct me if I'm wrong) they haven't used any "traditional" or tribal instruments. If they have used similar sounding instruments they certainly haven't used them extensively and these instruments certainly aren't a big part of their sound.
 * "Gojira has complex, progressive and frequently textured uncommon song structures." I think this should be rewritten.
 * Again complex; I've looked through the sources and complex is not mentioned. I'm not completely opposed to the term but in this context it is redundant and subjective (I'm pretty sure a modern classical composer or jazz artist wouldn't think Gojira is that complex). The term progressive already implies Gojira play intricate music.
 * "frequently textured uncommon song structures". I know music but I really don't know what this means. What are textured song structures? What is frequently textured? I've never seen the term "texture" being applied to song structures. Normally it's used to describe the sound of an instrument or part of music (see here) and refers to a combination of harmonical properties and to the color of sound. I'd say Gojira has "richly" textured parts: the atmospheric parts. If you want to emphasize the texture part, insert it here: "Gojira has also been known to incorporate textured atmospheric elements and instrumental songs into their music."
 * I'll apply the changes, and I think it's a good thing some content is devoted to song-structures, as it is an important aspect of Gojira's music. Kameejl (Talk) 10:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am really glad to hear what you say. So: Textured. We can leave that out (although it is mentioned here and also here). But about the complex song structures... I objectively really would say that Gojira has complex song structures. I am actually a big fan of both jazz and classical music. I would say that jazz, of course has its structure, but is much more about imrovisation and spontaneity. Heavy metal is (as I see it) one of the few genres where the artists reach such a compexity as the classical comporsers do. Of course only some kind of heavy metal artists do, but Gojira is one of the most visible ones. I am not saying that Gojira is as complex as Beethoven, but I would not compare complexity between different muscal genres. Compared to other heavy metal artists, Gojira is on of the really complex ones and if you mind the lenght of the "songs", note the tempo of heavy metal, specially Gojira. But I can't find the source where it was anymore, so... The traditional instrumentation - I know Gojira is not Soulfly, but on the record they use some other instruments for the instrumental songs. But generally I don't insist on those things above.
 * I am just trying to expand the article. And I also think that it is much better if we are two to discuss it. If you have some ideas how to expand it, you should apply them. Cheers   LYKANTROP   20:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Article improvement
See Peer review/Gojira (band)/archive1.--  LYKANTROP   17:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Death Metal?
I removed two references to Gojira being in the death metal genre. The major reference was in footnote 16, and the source, an internet website referred to Gojira as a mixture between death, progressive, and thrash metal. Personally, I don't see the death metal. They are a heavy band, but to be a true "death" metal band they would need the disgusting blood and guts lyrics. Also their sound, including the vocals, is much closer to thrash bands like Celtic Frost than death metal bands like Morbid Angel or Cannibal Corpse. If someone in the music press has called them death metal in a review, please provide an appropriate citation, but is a metal website really enough authority to categorize the band? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.44.74 (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"They are a heavy band, but to be a true "death" metal band they would need the disgusting blood and guts lyrics." That's untrue, as the genre is defined by a number of techniques and subtle nuances that make it what it is, such as blast beat drumming, dissonance, and growls, along with multi-layered riffs and... well, a lot of other things. They ARE death metal, they're just progressive, or technical (Tech/Prog death). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.111.151 (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just saw them tonight, very kick ass. They are clearly a death metal band. I just think that the lyrics are unique for a death metal band that is all. The guitar style, the drumming, the vocals, the overall feeling is that of a very tight, very modern death metal band. They are clearly not a black metal band (like Venom or Emperor,) if that is what is confusing you. A lot of death metal has been very lo-fi, but many bands like Children of Bodham, In Flames or Lamb of God make very awesome death metal while employing high quality production.
 * Children of Bodham? Do you mean Children of Bodom or some completely different band? Just askin'.Oh Frustration (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Calling them Death Metal is fine, calling them "Technical Death Metal" is wrong - see Nile, Necrophagist for Technical Death metal. Prog or Sludge is better than Technical Death Metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.215.125 (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Band Equipment
Does any one know if the equipment described in Joe Duplanteirs wiki is his Live equipment or Studio? The reason im asking this is because in that section of his wiki it simply states "Equipment" and doesnt correlate with the description of said equipment whether it is live, studio, or simply an unsorted list of both. Would someone be kind enough to clarify this? Whales are awesome (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The source that I got that from doesn't specify whether the equipment is live or studio. I wish I knew more so that I could help you out, but I guess I can't do that much about it. However, this link may be helpful for studio equipment. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 02:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Labels
I'm pretty sure Listenable does not distribute their records just in France, but at least in several other European countries (for example, in Germany), so where does this info come from? --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

plagiarism
I believe the latest changes to the page are plagiarized. They aren't sourced and are clearly copied and pasted from somewhere. "Mind-bending metal" is not exactly an encyclopedic choice of words. Also, at the end the text says "preorders will be available here shortly". I was not aware that wikipedia sold albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.78.128.96 (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 1

 * 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: no consensus to move. Favonian (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Gojira → Gojira (band) – as the most common usage of "Gojira" seems to be in reference to the Godzilla franchise, not the French heavy metal band. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC). Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - As a totally non-scientific and policy-discouraged piece of evidence, I submit Google search results for the word Gojira with the exact phrase "heavy metal" and Google search results for pages which use both the words Gojira and Godzilla. Do with this what you will. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The band name, as well as everything else on the disambig page, is derived from the Japanese term Godzilla. Crumpled Fire (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support primary usage is for Godzilla, so should redirect to the monster/franchise, a disambiguation page can be created at Gojira (disambiguation). 70.24.251.208 (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: "Gojira", in English, is solely associated with this band. "Godzilla" is the name for the monster internationally.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 09:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. But "solely" seems to be quite a leap; can you provide any evidence that this is the case? Evanh2008 (talk 09:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If you google, seven of the top 10 results relate to the band. Kauffner (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The article about the monster is called Godzilla; is anybody suggesting to rename/move it? Assuming not, the article on the band Gojira does not need a disambiguator. For readers expecting an article about the monster, there's a hatnote and an explicit link in first section. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think that the most appropriate thing to do in the event that this RM succeeds would be to have the article Gojira as a redirect to Gojira (disambiguation). Evanh2008 (talk 23:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: I've never heard of the band. But I have heard that Gojira is the "real" or original name of Godzilla, therefore the two words are, and should be considered synonymous. Anything else who's trading off the franchise's name recognition should be qualified.Boneyard90 (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Toho Films calls their character "Godzilla" in English, and ゴジラ in Japanese. In Japan if they want to refer to the character within the English alphabet, they do not use "Gojira". They use Godzilla.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 19:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The band is clearly the primary topic, no further disambiguation is necessary. All of the search terms relating to Godzilla that contain "Gojira" already redirect to the proper articles, and can be included at Gojira (disambiguation). Fortdj33 (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am acknowledging the fact that the band is the main entity with the name "Gojira", but that the monster of Japanese origin known as Godzilla is also applied the name of Gojira. I have not made up my mind whether or not this page should stay or should be moved, but I wouldn't mind too much if it ended up moving. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 20:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator. I can't say whether the band or the film franchise is the "main entity"; in fact, I'm not sure anyone can. Google search results are discouraged by policy, so are only peripherally relevant. What I can say from my own POV is that I didn't know the band existed until yesterday, when I typed in "Gojira", looking for information on the original film. Evanh2008 (talk 23:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would really say that was an error in judgement on your part, considering that in the Latin alphabet the kaiju is internationally known as "Godzilla". "Gojira" is merely the Hepburn romanization of that name which is not in primary use in English to refer to films.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 05:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Error in judgement it may be (I make those sometimes; I am mortal). I decided to mention it only because it relates to why I RM'd this page, and hopefully provides some context. For the record, there have been English-language releases and re-issues of Godzilla films which use the Hepburn Romanization. But whether it was an error in judgement or not, I would think it still has relevance as to where this page should be located to ensure optimal navigability for our readers. Really we need to determine whether it's more likely that someone is typing in "Gojira" looking for an article on the band, or on the Godzilla franchise; I thought that's what we were discussing, so thought it relevant to provide some personal testimony. Evanh2008 (talk 06:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That second listing should probably not even exist because it is just someone trying to sell a copy of Godzilla: Final Wars. And that reissue of Godzilla, King of the Monsters!/Godzilla (1954 film). Either way, I believe that more people are going to be looking for the band by typing in "Gojira" than they are looking for the monster who, as I stated before, is universally known as "Godzilla" in the Latin alphabet.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 08:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think your usage of the word "universally" is the problem here, like your usage of "solely" above. Both words, as used, have the meaning of "with no exceptions, ever". If I can show that there are at least a handful of exceptions (as I already have), then it's misleading to use those words. If you believe that the band is the entity most commonly known by the name, that's fine. I disagree, but I take no issue with your point-of-view on that. Evanh2008 (talk 18:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support; even in English, "Gojira" almost certainly refers to Godzilla. Powers T 01:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Be realistic.  Is anyone using English Wikipedia going to know "Gojira" but not "Godzilla" for the creature/movies?  Highly unlikely.  Those searching for "Gojira" are most likely looking for something actually called Gojira in English.  —  AjaxSmack   16:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ... or, they heard someone refer to "Gojira", perhaps affecting a Japanese pronunciation for ironic effect, and want to know what the person was referencing. Powers T 15:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Godzilla is called Godzilla in english. "Gojira" being the japanese way of saying it would be triva for most English speakers. Joesolo13 (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't trivia, since there's been a release of the original Japanese version with subtitles of the first movie in the English language market with the title "Gojira" Amazon.com . So it is used in English, for Godzilla. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support When I saw the talk page discussion, I thought the corresponding article was about the 1954 Japanese movie. "Gojira" is the Hepburn romanization of the title of the original film, which has priority over everything else called after it or its characters. Moscowconnection (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2012 (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.

Requested move 2

 * 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. With six supports (including the nominator) and two opposes, I deem there to be sufficient consensus that the French band does not have overwhelming primacy over the Japanese film and the alternative name for Godzilla, therefore the move should go ahead as requested. I have fixed all incoming links already, so it is free to go ahead. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

– --Relisted. --  tariq abjotu  06:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC) 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Gojira → Gojira (band)
 * Gojira (disambiguation) → Gojira


 * Support because I do not think there is a primary topic here. Searching for "Gojira" in Google Books, there are numerous English-language results about the monster. In contrast, Google News shows results about the band. The band cannot claim primacy (to serve as a primary topic on Wikipedia) if it derives its name from Godzilla/Gojira. A disambiguation page listing all topics seems most appropriate here. Readers who may search for "Gojira" on Wikipedia will not be astonished. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 01:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose In a situation such as this, it would be nice if there was a way (if there is I'm not aware of it) to see page clicks for the two topics. It seems to me a reasonably high profile, actively touring, English language metal band should have primacy of the title over a 59 year old foreign language film. This is after all an English language page and most people searching for Godzilla are going to search for it in that spelling. Even if they're directed here the first thing they would read is the re-directions at the top and easily find their way.Eric Ando (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Eric, check out what I said below. It looks like there are numerous English-language books with "Gojira" in a chapter name as seen at WorldCat.org. None of them appear to refer to the band. While the band page is popular, the namesake of Gojira has longer-term significance. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I think there is a cancelling-out effect. Honestly, regarding page views, it is hard to tell what readers do. Based on some volatile RM discussions in the past year or so, it seems like many readers get to a Wikipedia article through Google or something similar, where disambiguation pages are secondary. So if we disambiguate the band article, it still won't become harder to find for most readers, but it may be clearer to others. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support the alternative name for the film is far more notable in English books than the French band (which used to be called Godzilla anyway), the (band) disambiguator is required. Support move of dab back to Gojira as well In ictu oculi (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been said a bunch of times during this debate that Gojira is a French band. They are from France but they are an English language band that tours extensively in the US and UK. This is an English language page. The Gojira film is a foreign language film, that when translated to English is usually Godzilla. In the next comment down the user provides hits for the band, film and monster. 400k hits for the band with a spike in June 2012 seems fairly evident that the hits were for the band, not the monster, since Gojira put out a CD that month. Godzilla takes the hits 6/1 with the Gojira film page. There is a header on the Gojira band page to the DAB page. This whole debate, which was held once already seems unnecessary. If the page goes DAB it will serve to create more clicks for people looking for the band than the clicks it will save for people looking for the film. Eric Ando (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Gojira" does not just refer to the film but to the creature itself. As demonstrated below, the term has been used in English-language sources. When we talk about primary topics, we have to talk about both usage and long-term significance. If the band derives its name from a preexisting entity, especially one that has encyclopedic coverage, then it does not have full claim to primacy. In this particular context, since Gojira is a secondary name for Godzilla in pop culture, I think it makes sense to have a disambiguation page without any primary topic declared. Lastly, many readers already find their way to the right article outside disambiguation pages, which are actually minimally used in terms of navigation. If this article is moved to Gojira (band), all the links will be updated. In addition, querying "Gojira" in search engines will show the band article at the top. Lastly, when one types "Gojira" in Wikipedia, the drop-down menu of possible articles will show "Gojira (band)", which makes the topic especially clear. This is based on The Dark Knight (film) getting enormous article traffic but the disambiguation page Dark Knight being much less trafficked. So I find the navigation concern to be a minor one. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as per Erik. Clearly a contemporary band will get more news hits than a 50 year old film, but the hits on Google books overwhelmingly favor the monster/film. As for Wikipedia hits, just concentrating on the band, film and monster in 2012 we have 400k for the band, 200k for the film and over 1 million for the monster. Of course it is impossible to know how many readers are reaching the Godzilla article through the Gojira article so user traffic is pretty much useless in this case, but given the prevalence of the monster/film in the book coverage it seems logical to make "Gojira" a disambiguation page, on the basis that the primary topic is unclear. Betty Logan (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If you google, 18 of the results on the first two pages refer to the band, the other three to the film. So the film should be in the hat note, not the character or the boat. No one is the looking for the DAB page. Our article on the movie is titled Godzilla (1954), and the one on the character is Godzilla. You can't assume that readers going to those articles have even heard of "Gojira." Kauffner (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But that cuts both ways: given the sheer number of hits the Godzilla article receives, you can't assume editors aren't just "passing through" to the Godzilla article. And even though the band may get the majority of hits on Google Search, all the results for "Gojira" on Google Books refers to the monster/film, and books are generally a superior method of determining long-term significance. In short the primacy of the band has not been established, so it would be consistent with our policies to turn it into a disambiguation page. Betty Logan (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The "long-term significance" criteria is intended to tilt the balance in favor of subjects studied academically, as opposed to popular culture. These are two pop culture subjects. The appropriate standard is, more likely "to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term," per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Kauffner (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * , a popular culture artifact can have educational value. Godzilla/Gojira certainly qualifies as that. This is an example I found in Google Scholar. This is an English-language book that has numerous chapters with "Gojira" in the name. This actually mentions "Gojira vs. Godzilla". Also this, this, and this, the last one having a chapter called "Gojira = Godzilla". At WorldCat.org, none of these sources mention the band. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, per the convincing rationales given by Erik and Betty Logan. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  09:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per the arguments already given. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 07:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There appears to be consensus to move here, but who's willing to see to the incoming links? --BDD (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is why I never propose article moves! Can the Wikipedia software not be programmed to give us an option to change incoming links when an article is renamed? Betty Logan (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be a godsend. I'll try not to make a snarky comment about time spent developing VisualEditor. Err, I just did, didn't I? --BDD (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I will aim to have a look at the incoming links later tonight, hopefully, if time permits (can't always predict!). Re the changing of incoming links, I guess the main argument against it, and in favour of getting human eyeballs on each individual case is that many links to pages which are about to become disambigs are wrongly pointed anyway - a good example of this was Subway in the days when it used to redirect to Rapid transit; many incoming links were correctly about transit, but many more were actually referring to the restaurant. If you blindly went ahead and changed all Subway links to Subway, or indeed from a well known sandwich chain to a well known sandwich chain , then those restaurant links would be arguably more incorrect than previously, and harder to track down. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Alexandre Cornillon and Jean-Michel Labadie
Gojira just posted a picture of them in 1998 (https://www.facebook.com/GojiraMusic/photos/a.168408449849562.37256.164798226877251/1030208050336260/), which clearly includes Jean-Michel Labadie. The source here states that JM joined in 2001. Can someone find a reliable source stating the line-up change occurred earlier? —Zommel (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)