Talk:List of films featuring giant monsters

Comments
I have just created this page. I understand that it is as of yet incomplete, but I will try and expand it later. --Indie.Bones 14:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Indie.Bones

The date of individual films should not matter - either you have all the dates for all the films or just the year, for uniformity's sake. The specific dates should only belong in the specific article of the film in question, and just show the year on this page. This is just an advise for future editors/compilers. -- Doesnotexist 21:38, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The Pet (1921)
I believe that this animated film made by Winsor McKay is the first ever giant monster film and should be added to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.173.218 (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * i wouldnt say it counts as a movie Braganza (talk) 10:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Giant Turtle
Can someone fix the main article so it includes a reference to a made-for-television film in the late 1970s about a boy who finds a turtle, carves his initials on its back, and then - 20 years later - it is a huge, monster turtle that rescues him, but in doing so, gives up its life to save him?

I thought it was something like, "Curse of the Bermuda Triangle" - or something like that.198.177.27.21 (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Bermuda Depths? Braganza (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree, The Bermuda Depths with its glowing-eyed, supernatural giant turtle should be added to the list. I also wonder if Jack and the Beanstalk (1952 film), an Abbott and Costello musical in color qualifies. The giant character in the film, though a large human actor without special effects, is literally called "Giant" throughout the film, lives in a cloud kingdom, and desires to eat people. Some of the film titles currently on the list are just enormouse humans, so I don't know, the story Jack and the Beanstalk is one of the first giant tales and might qualify. I'm not a regular editor here so I'll leave it up to others to decide.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 10:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The Host
Can someone please add the 2006 South Korean movie THE HOST to the main article. I think it qualifies as the beast is larger than a couple of the monsters listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.18.43.225 (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

lists and damned lists
I really dont like lists with vague parameters. what is a monster exactly. how about richard Kiel in james bond, as jaws? arent there monsters in neverending story? are documentaries on bears about giant monsters? so what is a monster movie, and why have a list of them without clear parameters? this, along with List of monster movies need to be deleted or rethought. how about merging their contents into List of monsters. each monster will have a complete breakdown of the films they were in. just lists of monster movies in alpha order with little other content just seem so silly to me. i know, they are cool, and fun, but how exactly does this provide significant redundancy. the lists are horribly incomplete, or appear to be. and if someone feels differently, i wish they would fix this and the other one. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Jaws is not a giant monster movie. Sharks aren't monsters. There are also movies that may have a giant monster at some point but that doesn't make it a "giant monster movie" because that isn't what the movie is about. And how is Dragonheart a monster movie? The dragon is one of the protagonists. Helpsome (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * DIsagree, Jaws is a giant monster movie... Jaws is significantly larger than the largest great white shark. Apes aren't monsters either, yet King Kong is one of the most famous monster movies of all time! As to your other points, agreed, but I'm not sure where the line is. Dragons are monsters, yet Draco from Dragonheart wasn't very monstrous; dinosaurs aren't monsters, either, but are often used as monsters; and then, some giant monsters just played a small part in film, but are famous anyway (like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man from Ghostbusters). Should those films be included? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Jaws may be a large shark, but I have never seen that film described as a "giant monster film" in any film criticism. As to the Ghostbusters question, I don't personally think films like that belong here. Unless the giant monster is one of the main characters, it wouldn't by any legitimate definition be a "giant monster film". Ghostbusters fails this criteria. Helpsome (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Jaws is a thriller, but there are loads of references to it being a "giant shark" and a "monster" in film criticism; likewise, King Kong is an "adventure/fantasy/horror" film officially and not a "giant monster film." "Giant monster" is a sub-genre, like slasher or steampunk. It might even be a "sub-sub genre," the stepchild of monster movies. How do you define if they are a main character or not? Screen time? Amount of monsters? It's easy when they are the titular character, but that's not always the case. Examples of movies I would consider to be giant monster movies without a "main character monster" would be One Million Years B.C. or Yor, the Hunter from the Future. Another question is what defines a giant? As big or bigger than Andre the Giant? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

kaiju
shouldn't there be a link to kaiju on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.99.31 (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The Killer Shrews???
Hardly a giant monster film, it is about shrews that have grown to the size of dogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.60.248 (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding links section
When I started editing this page, there were 3 links at the bottom that had been there for some time.

1. A link to Atomic Monsters, which remains. 2. A link to a Portuguese B-movie review blog, which hadn't been updated in some years. 3. A dead link to Stomp Tokyo.

I replaced the dead link with my own website (educational, non-profit), which includes every one of the big screen films on this list. I have since replaced the Portuguese blog link with a working Stomp Tokyo link; I believe that both of these changes have improved the page. Thank you! Doctor Kaiju (talk) 10:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The link that replaced the Portuguese B-movie review blog, my own creation here, has been successfully blocked by Helpsome. This link includes every giant movie monster from this list, and many others; it is unquestionably relevant. I was told that the reasons for the exclusion were (short hand version) copyright infringement (incorrect, covered by free use), self-promotion (incorrect, there is none), not official (irrelevant regarding links, not followed anywhere else in Wikipedia), and that it was not a reliable source (irrelevant, it is not a source, but a link). This relevant, informative link should be included on the page, and I hope that it will be in the future. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know how many times we have to go over this but your site isn't "relevant" and doesn't belong here. The relevant parts of WP:LINKSTOAVOID would be numbers 11 and 12 which deal with personal sites and open wikis. Neither are appropriate external links. Multiple editors have told you this yet you persist in acting as though you were oppressed in some way. Helpsome (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason I persist is that your interpretation of numbers 11 and 12 from WP:LINKSTOAVOID also invalidate links already provided on this very page, yet you allow those links to remain. If those links are relevant, my link is relevant; if those links are appropriate external links (throughout our kaiju articles, mind you), than mine is an appropriate external link. Per WP:LINKSTOAVOID, my link SHOULD be included per numbers 2 and 4 (and regarding 12 I have multiple contributors and proofreaders; editors). Also, another correction: two admin have given me multiple completely different reasons why the link is inappropriate (as mentioned above), all in support of you, but actually blatantly wrong (trademark infringement, for example) and against Wikipedia policy as demonstrated on this very page by other links offered. I wouldn't call it "oppressed," that's your word, but it's certainly not consistent. The link should be included; it's an encyclopedia that includes every monster from film on this page, and many others. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Other stuff exists is not a good argument. If other links shouldn't be here then they should be removed, not used as an excuse to add other inappropriate links. Every single editor who has given an opinion on this subject has disagreed with you. The simple fact that you are blind to the reality that it is self-promotion to add your own website to multiple articles shows that you may have too much of a conflict of interest to make a proper judgement. Now please take one of the aforementioned administrator's advice and drop this and move on. Helpsome (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's certainly a good argument if it's demonstrated throughout Wikipedia; there's obviously another interpretation of the rules that you don't acknowledge. Just because two people besides you came up with some reasons not supported by Wikipedia policy (or reality, e.g. copyright infringement, relevant sourcing as it is not a source) does not convince me, because it is not demonstrated in like fashion anywhere else in Wikipedia. The simple fact that you refuse to acknowledge that this link is relevant to a few different kaiju articles (most certainly, at a minimum, this one) isn't going to convince me "drop this and move on." You drop it and move on; it's a relevant link. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I count three people other than myself on your talk page. And you yourself said arbitration denied your request to appeal all of this so that is even more people. Literally nobody except you thinks your own website belongs here. Please stop as your campaigning won't lead to a sudden change in policy. Helpsome (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't count those contributors who didn't actually make an argument. Correction: Arbitration did NOT say my appeal was not relevant, they said to hash it out in the talk pages, which I am doing. I am following their instructions, which most certainly were not to "drop it and move on." I'm trying to get you to realize that there is no self-promotion because there is no self being promoted. It is a giant monster movie encyclopedia and completely relevant. If you and yours refuse to accept that, that's fine with me. Another editor will check out the link at some point in the future and include it, as that is the appropriate thing to do. I'm not asking for a sudden change in policy; I'm asking for you to follow policy. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * One, Two, Three. Every one noted that your view goes against policy. You cannot convince me otherwise because policy is quite clear. Helpsome (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. "The links do not belong" is not an argument. 2. Reliable sourcing is not a valid argument, as it is not a source. 3. "Not in accord with policy" and in support of you, addressed here in detail. Regardless, policy itself says that the link should be included per points 3 WP:ELYES and 4 WP:ELMAYBE. You cannot convince me otherwise because policy (and practice) disagree with you. It will be included eventually. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"Links do not belong" is a statement of fact. You have failed to "address" how this fits policy. Instead you just ignore quoted policy and plow on pretending you have made a point. Point 3 WP:ELYES: "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues" There is nothing on your wiki that couldn't be included here (were it to be properly referenced as your website isn't) so no it doesn't meet that criteria. 4 WP:ELMAYBE: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." As noted earlier, open wikis are WP:NOTALLOWED and your open wiki with no inline references is hardly a "knowledgeable source". If you were truly sure that the links belonged and would be "included eventually" you would stop your promotional campaign and just let it happen organically. Helpsome (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "The links do not belong" is not a statement of fact, it is an incorrect opinion unsupported by Wikipedia policy. I have addressed all quoted policy, the only one ignoring policy here is you as clearly stated at WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE. Do you suggest that Wikipedia should actually have photos of every giant movie monster for every movie every made; likewise by extension one could assume every character ever in every movie? That is not supported by Wikipedia policy. Likewise, as noted earlier, the link is NOT an open wiki. Lastly, using the links already provided throughout Wikipedia in the kaiju section for over a decade as a baseline, it most certainly fits the common definition of “knowledgeable source” here (whether you share that view or not). This is not a promotional campaign, it’s my reaction to your exclusion of a perfectly relevant link for reasons not supported by Wikipedia policy in writing or practice. If you just want another editor with a non-kaiju username to add the link, that's easy enough? I have told contributors and readers not to add it for some time for fear of it being blacklisted, as threatened earlier by an admin. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Since giant photos don't add "encyclopedic understanding of the subject" your argument is invalid. Do you honestly not see the irrationality of using other links to justify your own? I never said others should add this link because nobody should add this link because it doesn't belong here. If you have other editors add it, you risk it being blacklisted. There is a reason there are conflict of interest guidelines and it is exactly this conversation. You have a complete inability to separate yourself from what you are trying to add. The fact that you try to argue that it isn't a promotional campaign for you to campaign for the inclusion of your own website shows that you are too close to this subject. Helpsome (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, many people (including the staff of Encyclopedia Britannica) think photos add an "encyclopedic understanding of the subject," whatever that subject may be, so your assessment of the validity of my argument is wildly incorrect. It's irrational to think a link that includes photos of all of the monsters noted in an article is not relevant. The link does belong here, it should not be blacklisted... first you say to "let it happen organically," then when you discover that others have offered to do so organically but have been warned not to by myself, you threaten blacklisting should they do so. You are unable to admit that you are wrong and have no policy in writing to back you up, that is unfortunate for Wikipedia, as many readers would like to actually see the monsters discussed in articles. I am "hashing it out in the talk pages" as instructed to by arbitration, if you have a problem with that then take it up with them. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * For it to happen organically it would have to have absolutely no connection to you. Anyone you would personally ask not to add it would have the same conflict of interest that you do....a fact to which you seem to be completely blind. Please find the relevant wikipedia policy which states that giant photos are encyclopedic. Helpsome (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * So that means that if you've posted on a forum with someone else who makes a website, you can then no longer ever add a link to their website to Wikipedia? Again, you stretch WP:CO to absurd lengths... something of which you are completely ignorant of. I don't interact personally with hundreds of the readers, only a few, yet all can read the result. I don't need to find a wikipedia policy that states that giant photos are encyclopedic, I never claimed such; I merely stated that they can add to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject... which they can. Please find the relevant wikipedia policy which states that photos cannot add an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This is why this conversation is pointless. You said your website should be included because it contains content which cannot be added to the articles themselves giving as an example giant photos. I asked for any relevant policy which states that giant photos would add "encyclopedic understanding of the subject" and you try to flip it around and ask for policy which directly states that they don't add "encyclopedic understanding of the subject". You aren't "discussing" anything here you are just saying WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If you have members of your site add the link here, you risk it being blacklisted. Helpsome (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The only reason this conversation is pointless is your complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy and this conversation. It's very simple; you said photos do not add an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, I said they do. Then you ask me for a policy to back up my response to YOUR claim. No, thank you. My argument is proven on many thousands of Wikipedia pages; photos are indisputably relevant by example. Also, the people that will add it are NOT members of MY site, they are members of forums where I post as a fellow member. The link should be included per Wikipedia policy, as we all know pictures of the subject at hand can add an encyclopedic understanding of the subject even though you said they do not. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

While you may claim that I don't understand policy, you were blocked for violating it while two admins agreed that your website doesn't belong here. Furthermore, I quote policy. You say "No, thank you. My argument is proven on many thousands of Wikipedia pages". Do you see the difference? If friends/acquaintances of yours add the links, it may be blacklisted and you probably risk being blocked again for spamming. Helpsome (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You were warned to not engage in edit wars, further demonstration of your lack of understanding of policy... and you should know better! You've been here for years! One can only think that you knew exactly what you were doing wrong, but chose to ignore the rules and do what you wanted regardless... just like now. Yes, two admins agreed with you for wildly different reasons not supported by policy in writing (for example, insisting that the "link" is a "source"), that doesn't make the decision correct. Lastly, please show where you quoted policy when making the absurd claim that photos do not add an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, only then will I need to offer a response other than "look at Wikipedia." The people that will add the link are not friends or acquaintances, anymore than you and I are; so it should not be blacklisted. The link is not spam, I should not be blocked because other people think that the link is relevant. What a nice position you have of "two admin agree with me, so I'm right... if editors agree with you and add the link, you will be blacklisted and blocked." That stretches the limits of your good intentions to the breaking point. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Nothing you said refuted anything I said above. Policy stands. The relevant parts of WP:LINKSTOAVOID would be numbers 11 and 12 which deal with personal sites and open wikis. You said I didn't know policy and I showed you where One, Two, Three people agreed with me. I never said "two admin agree with me, so I'm right" I was replying to you with the evidence you requested. Your arguments are circular and self-serving. I am done trying to get through to you. You have all but outright said you will have others add links (while delicately wording it in such a way that not not telling friends to add it somehow doesn't count as telling them to add it) If the links magically show up again, they will be removed per policy and you risk being blocked again. Helpsome (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If policy stands, the link will be included. The relevant parts of WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE would be numbers 3 and 4; number 12 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID is not relevant here as the link is not an open wiki; Number 11 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID only applies if you don't actually read the definitions of Personal_web_page, Blog, and Fansite; once you take the time to read these entries, you will see that both of your points against the link are not actually supported by Wikipedia policy in any way. Your position is blatantly wrong, you have consistently posted arguments not supported by Wikipedia policy for reasons that must remain a mystery to those of us who use the actual written policy as a guide to what the policy is. I have not "delicately worded" anything; I have made it very clear that I am a member of forums where this link is a topic of discussion. It won't "magically" show up, but "organically," which you implied was acceptable initially until you discovered it would probably happen and then you changed your mind. Oh, and don't do any more edit warring, or you will run the risk of being blocked yourself, perhaps permanently! Doctor Kaiju (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Fansite: "A fansite, fan site, fan blog or fanpage is a website created and maintained by a fan or devotee interested in a celebrity, thing, or a particular cultural phenomenon." Am I to believe that you aren't a fan of kaiju? Please put your hostility towards me aside for one moment - if your forums friends show up and start spamming links to your website, they will be removed and the people will most likely be blocked. Dealing with spam and vandalism isn't "edit warring" so please spare me your threats. Helpsome (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I am a fan, but the website is not devoted to a "celebrity, thing, or particular cultural phenomenon." Giant monsters (not one, not only King Kong movies, not just Japanese monster movies) transcend any cultural_phenomenon, and are an inherent part of the human imagination everywhere at every time. And try to put your hostility towards me aside for a moment and realize that there are hundreds of people that read and participate in threads with this link being discussed, and if one decides to include this totally relevant link, things are only as they should be per Wikipedia policy, so please save your constant and steady train of threats for someone else. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * So beyond redefining external link policy, now you get to decide what is or isn't a cultural phenomenon? Your arguments are circular, self-serving, and they have nothing to do with policy. You have made it clear here that you will be having friends add those links. Should they do so, you will most likely be blocked. Helpsome (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You are the one redefining external link policy, I am following it to the letter. It is not I who get to decide what a cultural phenomenon is, but the very definition provided by Wikipedia... giant monsters are not a "cultural phenomenon" per the definition provided. Why do you refuse to follow policy? The only circular arguments here are your own... I have made it very clear that I will not be having friends add this link, yet you insist that I have said so. I have only made it clear that this link will appear organically, and that's as things should be, and totally not against Wikipedia policy. And according to your talk page if you engage in any more edit warring you will be blocked, maybe permanently, so watch yourself! Doctor Kaiju (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You explicitly stated "I have made it very clear that I am a member of forums where this link is a topic of discussion" and danced around the fact that they are friends by stating "The people that will add the link are not friends or acquaintances, anymore than you and I are". If these links start showing up from your forum friends, you will be responsible. Helpsome (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * So, if I'm responsible for any links that show up from my "forum friends", that means that you are responsible for any links that are ever posted by your "wiki friends?" They're all your friends, right, since you all share membership at Wikipedia and read the same articles? Please keep your friends in line, or you could be blocked. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That was beyond meaningless. Don't try to game the system by broadly interpreting policy in ways well beyond its actual meaning. Are you saying that two people who are members of a giant project like wikipedia must be friends because on another incredibly small forum you actively converse with others about your own website? At this point I honestly can't tell if you are truly beyond reasoning with or if you are simply trolling. Either way, I have said all that needs to be said: your website violates policy and if you have your friends add it here, it will be deleted and you risk being blocked as well as having your site blacklisted. Helpsome (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Every argument you have presented is beyond meaningless. It looks like you've only looked at one forum, Helpsome; regardless, if I am responsible for thousands of members, then why shouldn't you be responsible for millions? If you can't tell if I'm trolling or not, I really can't help you. You honestly think I would work on this wiki page and another closely related web site (both were built together over a year, starting with this page) and multiple forums so I could troll one editor on a talk page? What you repeat is wrong, as the link is totally within Wikipedia policy per WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE. If one of the thousands of weekly readers (or friends, as you misleadingly call them, as if repeating the blatant falsehood would make it the truth) posts the link, it should not be deleted because that would be absurd and against everything Wikipedia stands for per the mission statement. And allow me to remind you yet again that if you continue to contribute in edit wars you may be blocked as warned more than once on your talk page (and you've deleted warnings besides that), perhaps permanently! Doctor Kaiju (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is something else for you to pretend to read: WP:TALK which shows what is and isn't allowed on a personal talk page. I can delete whatever I want (and not all "warnings" are valid). Please keep your threats to yourself as you clearly have no understanding of policy. Should anyone from your website or associated forums arrive to add that site, it will be deleted, possibly blacklisted, and the spammers face potential blocks. There is nothing more to discuss. Please go make some productive edits instead of wasting hours arguing why your own website should be added in spite of clear policy. Helpsome (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I never said (or even vaguely implied) that you weren't allowed to delete warnings on your talk page; however, it's a clear case of you trying to make your talk page less embarrassing than it already is. Of course I know not all warnings are valid; for examples, I would offer every one of your warnings to me. There is a lot more to discuss, as your personal opinion is in direct conflict with written Wikipedia policy. If anyone from any website should add that site, it may very well be deleted, but that deletion would also be in direct conflict with written Wikipedia policy. Actually, why don't you stop threatening and just blacklist the website now so we can go directly into arbitration and I can get it reversed? I will gladly continue making productive edits to this page the second you stop wasting hours arguing why a website full of giant monsters from movies should not be linked on the giant monster movie list, in spite of clear policy supporting its inclusion (point 3 of WP:ELYES and point 4 of WP:ELMAYBE). However, should you continue to argue against Wikipedia policy, I will continue to counter you here, as arbitration has instructed me to do. And furthermore, let me remind you that should you persist in involving yourself in edit wars, you WILL be permanently banned per Wikipedia policy as already warned repeatedly on your talk page. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I never implied that these links appearing "organically" would be acceptable, nor did I backpedal from that. What I clearly said was "If you were truly sure that the links belonged and would be "included eventually" you would stop your promotional campaign and just let it happen organically." Nowhere in that statement does it say I believe these links "should" appear organically. The point I made was that if you were so 'sure these links belonged, you wouldn't need to campaign so hard for them. Obviously others would agree. That hasn't been the case. Literally everyone who has given an opinion has said they don't belong here. Helpsome (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "If you were truly sure that the links belonged and would be "included eventually" you would stop your promotional campaign and just let it happen organically." You might not think that is implying that these links appearing "organically" would be acceptable, but the implication remains. Group think, when against actual written policy, is wrong, as clearly demonstrated here; you can get fifty people to agree with you, but that would only mean you managed to find fifty people to disagree with the written policy to defend one of their "own." Lastly, it's not a promotional campaign, OR every link ever provided is a promotional campaign; it's a link relevant to the subject at hand as clearly stated in policy per 3 of WP:ELYES and 4 of WP:ELMAYBE. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It implies only what it explicitly states: you claim it is "obvious" your links belong and yet your actions belie that fact. If it was that obvious, you wouldn't be alone in an echo chamber. Anything against written policy would be wrong but there has been no act of "group think" here, merely multiple people telling you your actions are in violation of written policy. It is a promotional campaign because it is your website. Not "every link ever" was added by a person who benefited from its publicity. This is the third of fourth time I have posted this so maybe this last one will be the one that clicks: read the conflict of interest guidelines. Helpsome (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Incorrect, if you explicitly stated it it would cease to be an implication. I'm not "alone in an echo chamber;" there are others who think this link should be included here. However, I don't need them to prove my point; Wikipedia policy does that for me. There is clearly demonstrated groupthink here, as incorrect conclusions have been made in defense of you. Every link ever was "promotional," Helpsome, as every link ever promotes the website that it links to. I get no benefit from any "publicity," so it is not "self-promotional." This is the third or fourth time you've posted this, and it is also the third or fourth time you are wrong per WP:COI. What you link to defeats your own argument, no matter how many times you link to it it won't agree with you. There is no business or financial interest; there is no advertising and the link makes absolutely zero dollars. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You build the site to be used, right? So posting it around so people would use it benefits you. This would be why you have promoted your website on forums as you have already admitted. There need not be financial remuneration for it to be a conflict of interest and the guidelines don't limit themselves to financial gain. Had you read them, you would know this. Helpsome (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I actually did read the guidelines, and if you would read them a few more times perhaps you would see that you are incorrect, as there is no reason for exclusion per WP:COS. There is not anything but the subject at hand, giant monsters. The link promotes giant monsters. That's what makes the link relevant, because there is no self-promotion; it is not being used as a source, not being cited, and not a promotion of the site with an article; it's merely a link about the actual subject in this article. I was not personally involved in the creation of these films or monsters; the link is a simple encyclopedia with hundreds of giant monsters from giant monster movies, appropriately credited to the creators and with further data beyond Wikipedia's focus to provide. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If you read them, then there is no excuse for your continued stubbornness. You have a clear conflict of interest. Helpsome (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This is wrong. There is no reason this link is to be excluded per WP:COS. If you read them and understand the content, as clearly defined therein, there is no conflict of interest with this link. It appears your argument is not with me, but with Wikipedia policy in writing itself. This may be why you continue to break the rules in spite of multiple warnings over many years. You are unable to successfully refute even one of my arguments (supported by policy), you merely switch to another reason that you had abandoned earlier (for example, your continued return to the "no open wiki" clause of links to avoid, in spite of the link clearly and demonstrably not being an open wiki; why you would repeatedly return to this false argument is a question that only you can answer). Perhaps you should take some time to actually familiarize yourself with the content of the links that you provide so that you can avoid this in the future. This may also help you to avoid the edit wars that you so frequently become embroiled in. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And don't delete my talk page comments. Helpsome (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * My browser froze and I closed the page, thank you very much. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

To avoid a "circular argument" in the future, please remember that these points have been refuted, and are no longer validly presented. 1. This link should not to be excluded per WP:ELNO point 11 because it is not a fansite per the definition provided; Godzilla is a cultural icon (Japan); King Kong is a cultural icon (USA); but all Giant Monsters inclusively are not a "cultural phenomenon" any more than ghosts, dragons, or demons are. 2. This link should not be excluded per WP:ELNO point 12 because it is not an open wiki. 3. There is no clause of WP:COI that would exclude this link; please note "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest" does not apply as this link is complementary to the aims of Wikipedia as expressed in the mission statement; The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. As Wikipedia itself is unconcerned with actually having an article or photograph for each Giant Monster per WP:N as they are not notable, this link actually supplements Wikipedia nicely. Including this link satisfies both the letter and the intent of Wikipedia policy, and should be included per WP:ELYES point 3 and WP:ELMAYBE point 4. 4. Please note that both my real name and internet presence are independent of this link, so there is no "self-promotion" presented; I chose this editor user name specifically to be frank and prevent any conflict of interest when presenting the link. I can offer this link with no policy-based objection per WP:COS; it is not an article; it is not a citation. I hope this has convinced you; if so, I encourage you to add the link yourself! Thank you for your time. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Repeatedly saying that you have refuted something doesn't make it so. Your link is self-promotional and violates WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Literally no one else has agreed with you that your links belong here which is why they aren't here and why you were blocked for adding them. There is nothing more to discuss no matter how many times you claim you have "refuted" this. Helpsome (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Repeatedly avoiding actual points raised, making false points already refuted, and then bringing up blatantly inappropriate points others have made (like WP:RS) doesn't make you and yours right; it is groupthink in action. I feel like you felt on the vegetarian section, Helpsome; you are supposed to enforce Wikipedia policy, not break it when it contradicts your whim or to defend a snap judgment that won't withstand scrutiny. Why don't you try addressing arguments instead of ignoring them? If you took the time to read them, you may change your mind and see that the link belongs. If you would like, we can go through each point, one by one. Let's start with one point you've brought up repeatedly that is demonstrably false; the link is not an open wiki and not to be excluded by point 12 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Do you now accept this point as refuted? If no, let's discuss why you think a closed wiki is open; if yes, we can move on to another point. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Here are two points which have been made that you simply ignore or think personal disagreement counts as "refuting": WP:ADV states: "But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked." I don't care if you want to keep claiming you don't benefit from promoting your own site (which is ridiculous on its face). And WP:ELNEVER states: "Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked." Your website is filled with photos and posters that you do not have the right to use. Helpsome (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you still wasting time discussing this? You were blocked once for repeatedly adding the link, a block that was affirmed by several admins who all denied an early unblock. If you add it again, you will be blocked for a longer period, period. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If arguing for correct application of the WIKI rules as written is a waste of time, so be it. My link was (and is) a totally valid link on ANY giant monster movie page, whether you and two other people agree with me or not. The fact that you would block for the addition of the link reveals that you are a tiny part of the problem, and one of the many reasons Wikipedia loses editors every year (like myself) Doctor Kaiju (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And if including photos of publicly released movie posters and film stills is copyright violation, than Wikipedia is in a HUGE amount of legal trouble. An absurd argument that I certainly hope you critically review before using again. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing desperately needed
The vast majority of the films listed have no sourcing to establish that they are in fact considered giant-monster films. Bluelinks are insufficient to satisfy this concern per WP:CIRCULAR, though it is possible that the articles themselves will have appropriate sources. I've tagged the article for needing additional sources as a consequence. DonIago (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Honestly, this has been discussed here and the chance of finding reliable sources to label all of these films specifically "giant monster films" is slim to say the least. The whole thing should probably go to WP:AFD and be deleted. Helpsome (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm open to that option, though I'll certainly give other editors time to weigh in and/or improve the article before taking such an action. DonIago (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the list but retained the text; given that the only source provided for any of the entries was IMDb, which isn't appropriate for this kind of list, in my estimation it would be better to rebuild the list from scratch. DonIago (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Helpsome has seen to it that no other editors will improve the article... the list is now kept elsewhere online, not at wikipedia. The death spiral continues! Enjoy Doctor Kaiju (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, Helpsome has been deleted from Wikipedia, which is fortunate and long overdue. Finally! Perhaps work can be done on this page after all. First, this list doesn't need to include "giant monster films" only; there's no reason it can't include films that simply feature giant monsters. Second, "giant monsters" is easy to define using the dictionary; as giant is a matter of perception, and humans are the movie makers, giant monsters are bigger than humans. Third, IMDb may not be considered a source, but I think it should suffice until some editor with access to a hardcopy movie encyclopedia arrives to confirm what is already known and undisputed as fact (i.e. this is a movie). Doctor Kaiju (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Wikipedia lists should not be indiscriminate. In my opinion, barring other criteria for inclusion, this article should focus on films where a source other than we humble editors has noted the appearance of giant monsters (and I don't mean in a synopsis). IMDb is not a reliable source for this and should not be used. It could also be argued that for us to include a film here simply because we believe it to be a giant monster film constitutes original research. But then, is this supposed to be a list of giant monster films in the sense of a genre, or simply a list of films in which a giant monster appears? DonIago (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The list was not indiscriminate. Giant monsters is self-explanatory, you don't need an "expert" to tell you what a giant monster is, just like you don't need an expert to tell you what a tiny monster is. Thousands of references to said giant monsters can be found in hundreds of reviews in writing with Roger Ebert alone. Truly absurd. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Giant monster films is not a defined genre, therefore the only list you can make is a list of films featuring a giant monster. The title of the list should be changed as such. An official synopsis should be sufficient as reference. Also, the introduction is incoherent and makes no sense. A simple statement about the purpose of the list should be enough. Finally, the person who keep deleting the list, please stop. How would you expect people to contribute in finishing the list if they don't see a list? 174.4.37.34 (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that the list had been tagged for needing sourcing for over six months, editors were well within their rights to remove unsourced material, especially given that this discussion was initiated at the same time. I disagree that a synopsis should be considered sufficient, and would instead propose that a third-party source should be provided that discusses the presence of the giant monster(s) within the films on a more than casual basis. For instance King Kong most likely belongs on this list (any version, really), but a little-seen film where a single giant newt appears for ten seconds almost certainly shouldn't be on this list...but if the New York Times made note of that appearance, it might be a different story.
 * It might be worth considering whether this would be better off as a Category rather than a list. DonIago (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If a film features a giant monster for 10 seconds, by definition it is still a film that featuring giant monsters. A good example will be "Ghostbusters". Definitions don't change just because some big media talks about it.  If you continue to use wishy washy definitions people will always disagree. Given the definition the film itself is enough as reference, this is what people call self-evident. Even for an academic paper it would be acceptable.   174.4.37.34 (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, that could be considered a film that includes a giant monster, much as not every castmember that appears in a film could be said to be a "featured" castmember. Featured, in many cases, suggests that they received significant attention. In any case, as I said above, with regards to List articles, WP:IINFO applies...we need to establish criteria for inclusion on this list, and I don't believe "Any film that shows a giant monster" is sufficient. Besides, at what point is a monster considered giant? Is a five foot newt a giant monster? DonIago (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a five foot newt would be a giant monster, as newts are usually a few inches long. There really doesn't need to be a debate about any of this. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

And whether you think that "any film that shows a giant monster" is sufficient criteria or not should be irrelevant to you. The creators of the film thought the giant monster was sufficient for inclusion in their film... the list is supposed to be about giant monsters in films... ergo, if the creators thought it should be included, so should it be included on the list, should anyone wish to face the gauntlet to actually bother editing a page here. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The name of the page isn't "List of giant monsters in film" but rather "List of giant monster films", which suggests to me that this page is discussing a film genre, not simply listing any film in which a giant monster appears. I would argue that the lead of the page supports my interpretation. If you disagree, then perhaps we should consider renaming the article for clarity. That being the case, it should be trivial to find reliable sources that discuss the entries on this page as being giant monster films, and sources are required as discussed at WP:Source list. DonIago (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The suggestion you have inferred doesn't change anything. As there is no expert to define what a giant monster movie is, as there is no college of giant monster studies with post graduate studies specializing in daikaiju, the net can be as broad as anyone bothering to edit would like to cast it. And instead of deleting hours of work and research, perhaps you could put some time into the page yourself. After all, the vast majority of movies cited in the list are actually movies with their very own wikipedia pages with sources and everything. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:CIRCULAR - Wikipedia articles are not citations. You have no consensus to re-add the material. You are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution, but as the article has already been tagged for needing citations for well over a month, to re-add the material without appropriate references is a violation of WP:BURDEN. As I've already discussed, defining what a giant monster movie is should be a simple matter of finding sources that refer to a given film in such a manner. DonIago (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Please recall that you had no consensus to delete the material, and the consensus to retain the material is 2:1. You are welcome to pursue other forms of Dispute resolution, but the consensus is it stays. And we don't need to define what a giant monster is, just like we don't need to define what the word "consensus" means. The word defines itself quite nicely. Instead of deleting someone's work and then asking them to work more so that you can delete it in the future, perhaps you could ADD to the encyclopedic knowledge, instead of erasing it? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * And, yet again on this page, yet another aspiring editor provides links to rules that they are not familiar with. Please note from WP:CIRCULAR- "Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources." As you can see by clicking through the hundreds of films listed, many do have reliable sources! You can go and delete the movie pages without reliable sources, but that would be silly, wouldn't it? As the material is UNLIKELY TO BE CHALLENGED because the movie is playing on television right now or available for rent on Netflix or Amazon, et al. It's not challengeable on any intellectually honest level. Island Claws is a real movie! Doctor Kaiju (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * And one more thing, according to WP:CS video and audio formats can be used as a source. So, the movie DVD is itself it's very own source, or a Neflix video of the same film, or a TV broadcast. Please stop reverting unless you can come up with a response as to why the video formats are not reliable sources even though WP:CS says they are, or take this whole page to arbitration. The arguments I have been embroiled in here are baffling to me, and seem directly opposed to adding to the encyclopedic knowledge of anything. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I have requested additional opinions at WT:FILM. In the meantime I think you would be well-advised to look at articles such as List of neo-noir titles, a properly cited list of film titles. DonIago (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, good. In the meantime, I suggest you read WP:CS again so you you know what is within it next time, and also re-familiarize yourself with WP:CIRCULAR. And why you're at it, consider if you would apply your current logic and delete Die Nibelungen (1924) because it doesn't have what you (not Wikipedia) consider a viable source. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am disinclined to further edit this page without input from additional editors. If you meant a separate article, please provide an appropriate link. DonIago (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am disinclined to provide you with the link upon request, as we both know that you know how to find it, now don't you? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BURDEN, the unsourced content should not be restored without sources. Let's start from scratch and identify list sources so we can use them to start anew. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CS there ARE sources. Not every film is completely sourced, but some films are. Let's not start from scratch and edit the existing list. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the way to resolve this debate is to look for general references on giant monster films. This is required anyway by WP:LISTN to establish the notability of a list as a list. Adequate general sources would also relieve you of the necessity of agreeing on the definition of giant monster movies. I have added three sources. I have limited access to the books, so I can't vouch for their quality. The Landis book has a short treatment of giant monster movies in its introduction and there is a chapter on King Kong which may include a discussion of giant monster movies. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Rock. It's good to see an actual contributor on this page. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And page restored, since Erik is not the "great decider."Doctor Kaiju (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've warned you for restoring unsourced content. Wikipedia is based on reliable, published sources. To say that the film is its own reference is circuitous. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've warned you for deleting sourced content. The film is its own reference per WP:CS. Please stop deleting sourced content or you may be blocked from further editing. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And I guess you missed the book sources posted by RockMagnetist? Too busy deleting, eh? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The only citations provided within the list itself were to IMDb, which is not a reliable source. I'm sure anyone participating in this discussion would be happy to retain items that can be sourced to reliable sources. The references provided by Rock are doubtless a good starting point, and should be used to verify the list items, but I highly doubt they verify every movie on the list. DonIago (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone in their right mind CHALLENGE THE VERACITY of the film "Death Kappa" because it's not specifically been tracked down in writing? It's playing on cable TV RIGHT NOW. You two are lacking any measure of WP:COMMON. Why not add the references you would like yourselves to improve the encyclopedic knowledge, as is our mission statement? You should be ashamed of yourselves. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you feel the requirements for lists are too stringent in this case, perhaps it might be better to focus your energies towards Category:Giant monster films. For categories it's simply a matter of applying the appropriate category to the article to which you think it belongs, and in that case, given the category we're discussing, the films themselves likely would be considered appropriate sources. DonIago (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * After having untold hours of work destroyed and having to battle with you and your ilk for even more hours, my eagerness to contribute more has waned. Just delete the page, I surrender. And you should probably visit every film page at Wikipedia on that list, half aren't appropriately sourced. Just erase all of those hundreds of movie pages, too, that will be fun for you and should keep you occupied for some time. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, per DEFINING, inclusion in a category should be based on reliable sources. There is no escape. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the need for two such extreme points of view. Keep in mind that Verifiability only requires citations for entries "whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged". , do you seriously mean to challenge the inclusion of King Kong? Why not be a bit more selective and put some of the obvious ones back? And both of you could try adding reliable sources for each entry. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

In particular,, you can find lots of reliable sources for individual entries by following the links to the articles. I'm going to add one for the Godzilla movies. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There doesn't need to be a middle way. Should their inaccurate interpretation of WP:CS be used in WP thousands of film pages would be deleted. On his last edit, Dongiago claimed his revert was "per talk page," even though no consensus has been reached and other editors disagree. He even claims that NONE of the films are reliably sourced in his edit, which is a bald-faced lie. They're not interested in contributing anything to this page, obviously, as they've as of yet contributed absolutely nothing. Hopefully someone of authority will show up, I'm not spending one more minute editing this page without someone giving these guys a very basic breakdown, starting with WP:COMMON and going down the list from there. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I am an admin, but I am not here to exert my authority. I would prefer to solve this with diplomacy and sources. I find that arguments about interpretation of guidelines often go nowhere. In the end, the best way of preserving your work is to find the sources. Otherwise the argument is never really settled. I am going to provide a sample of what can be done by reinstating the Godzilla movies. To make a selective reinstatement easier, I have saved the table at Talk:List of giant-monster films/The list. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh thank Cthulu! I'll check in a day or two just to make sure I'm not throwing further work down the hole and add some films. Should anyone else wish to work on this, a good reference (NOT source) is my list of 764 films [], it will point you in the right direction to many movies that should be included because they REALLY EXIST. I'd add it as a link, but of course it has been deemed SPAM and not relevant by other editors. Good times. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't promise to do much more. I responded to a request for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, and I don't really have the time to rebuild the list. I'm just trying to show the way. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for contributing at all. The last few visitors are just really into deleting and ordering other people about to please themselves, instead of actually contributing and solving their own issues with the article. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sections
The full list, as it was before the recent edit warring, seems a bit long and unwieldy. It seems to me that it would really help to break it into sections. Some possible section titles are Dinosaurs, dakaiju, Contemporary animals (e.g., gorillas), and Humans. Any thoughts? RockMagnetist(talk) 01:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

That could be good, or by decade, or by studio, or even how the monsters are presented on screen, like "stop-motion" or "suit" or "cgi." Studio would help keep alike films together, for example all but 2 of the Godzilla films are Toho studios. I like the dinosaurs, etc. and studio categories the most. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe for now we could add a couple of columns, one for type of monster and one for the studio. Then we can see how well these classify the entries. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, it appears to be a bit difficult to identify the studio for every film. Since the monsters are the main point of this list, it makes sense to classify them and use that as the basis for sections. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Media?
Why do the tables include the medium? It's hardly an inherent feature of the movie, and it looks really odd to say that a movie made in 1925 is on DVD - maybe now, but certainly not when it was filmed, and probably not a few years from now. How about we replace it with a column that identifies what monsters are in the movie? For a lot of titles, that is far from obvious. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Media section seems a little silly and isn't standard in my experience. A description of the monsters makes sense to me. Something else to consider would be a separate column for references, which might call additional attention to the fact that they should be included. See List of films featuring space stations as an example. DonIago (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I just worked with the format as it was when I arrived, I'm not in favor of keeping it. I have identified many (but not all) of the monsters that are in every big-screen (not made-for-tv) film on that list in its entirety, plus about 600 more here . I started this list after my first bout of arguments on this page, as I didn't want to lose all of my work to the void. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

More articles for deletion, yay!
The Mechanical Man is a film you "haven't read WP:CS carefully enough" guys should probably delete, since it doesn't have a reference in writing and even uses a VIDEO as a reference! For shame! Yes, it is a well-known and famous silent movie, but you know. You guys should probably put this in the dustbin, because that's what the rules are for, our mission statement of deleting encyclopedic knowledge or something. Right? If you can't find any more like to work on, just send me a message, there are a few hundred more classic films that must be erased from our pages per your logic. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 05:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh! Almost forgot, a great deal of books with pages use themselves as a reference to prove they exist. Here's one of THOUSANDS. Since  Erik said video can't be used to verify its own existence, of course books can't be used to verify their own existence. Right? Should you need more novels and literature to delete, please send me a message, there is much work to be done per your interpretation of WP:CS! Maybe, just maybe, we can get down to 2 million pages? OH BOY Doctor Kaiju (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand your frustration with the way this list has been treated. It's hard to see material that you have spent a lot of time on challenged and removed. But ranting doesn't help. As for The Mechanical Man, you need to distinguish between the quality of the article (which can be improved) and the notability of its subject (which generally does not change). Yes, the movie is clearly notable, but at the time of your writing it had no citations to prove that. With a couple of minutes work, I added a couple of reliable sources, and I suspect there are many more. The movie can't demonstrate its own importance, but articles about the movie can. And such sources provide more material for the article, so it's win-win. RockMagnetist(talk) 07:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! I am not disagreeing that adding sources is great, but come on, why are they deleting the whole list if many of the films are sourced? Why do they think someone would challenge "Death Kappa" when it's for rent at Netflix? On what authority are they destroying encyclopedic knowledge, when they themselves can provide the solution? It's bizarre. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

, I've added a few films based on a list source. The applicable guideline is WP:LISTCRITERIA. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, so it is a best practice to use reliable secondary sources. WP:PSTS says, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Yes, some interpretations may be obvious, but that should mean that sources are easy to find. Sourcing is even more important for cases where readers and editors may argue if a film should be listed here. For example, I added Tremors here, which I could see being disputed since the Graboids are not that large. But a reliable source lists it as such, so we can go with that and include a pertinent quote in the reference if clarification is needed.

Furthermore, I've revised the list a little further. I removed the "Media" column (and then added a "Ref." column). I noticed with the three Godzilla films, one of them having a reference attached, sorting was an issue. So it helps to separate the references from the film titles for easier sorting. I've also tried to move around most movies alphabetically since the order of the table should be based on the first column. I added a few films in an act of good faith to re-build the list with proper sourcing. I've worked on other lists of films before and try to maintain their integrity with sourcing across the board. , maybe you could take a few minutes to add a few more films to the list? We can all pitch in. We can link to an older page version here to look up film titles and find reliable secondary sources identifying the giant-monster element in them. As for the Godzilla films, we should find a "blanket" reliable source to plug in for them, identifying Godzilla as the recurring giant monster. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work on the list. The source I used for the first Godzilla movie could be used for all of them. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible sources
I don't have time to do serious work on the article right now, but a simple Google search found the following potential sources (among many others)...I grant that there may be some redundancy here: If my time clears up I'll see if I can actually incorporate material from these sources. DonIago (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Selection criteria
The Manual of Style requires that each list have unambiguous selection criteria. Given sufficient sources to establish the notability of a list, and clear selection criteria, sources are only needed to demonstrate an entry meets the criteria.

A common criterion is that all of the entries be notable. Generally a blue link is considered sufficient evidence for that. The other question to be asked here is what counts as a giant-monster film. The main possibilities are:
 * 1) The monster(s) play a primary role in the movie (as in Godzilla), or
 * 2) They can play bit parts (as in The Thief of Baghdad).

I lean towards option 1 because that seems to be the way the general sources define giant-monster films (although I can't read Marrero). Also, it will generally be obvious when a movies meets this criteria, in which case a source is only needed to confirm the release date. That should reduce the burden of evidence. Other opinions? RockMagnetist(talk) 15:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the current name of the article and my interpretation of the lead as well as earlier comments I've made on this page, I doubt it's any surprise that I lean toward option 1 as well.
 * If we were going to pursue option 2 then I would very strongly recommend that the name of the article be changed to more accurately reflect its focus. DonIago (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could use sources that explicitly state "giant monster film", "giant monster movie", and other variations. That way we can narrow the scope. But does that mean we want to exclude movies where a giant monster appears at the end of the movie, and sources may not give a full "giant monster film" label? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I see now that there is no giant monster film. Maybe there could be a broad-concept article that also has a list of films that are explicitly giant monster films. Then maybe we could have a list of films featuring giant monsters to include the genre films as well as films that have giant monsters as a complementary element? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is monster movie, which mainly discusses giant monsters. Maybe that should be developed with a view to eventually splitting it. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would think monster movie also covers things like Dracula/Frankenstein/the Mummy...
 * Absolutely - the article needs expanding. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec)My understanding was that this basically boiled down to List of films featuring giant monsters, and maybe there should also be a List of giant monsters in film for situations where a giant monster appears but isn't considered a primary element. For the first list I would think "giant monster film" or what-not would be necessary in the source, while the second would just require incidental mentions. I'm pretty brain-dead right now though. DonIago (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * All these choices are making my head swim. Whatever approach we choose, we should probably make it consistent with List of monster movies. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Should the Adam Bellotto article be considered a reliable source?
One of the online sources cited in the list is an article by Adam Bellotto published on July 24, 2015, titled "A New Renaissance For Giant Monster Movies Is Almost Upon Us". The website it comes from, Film School Rejects, is a blog. I think it's probably okay under WP:QUESTIONABLE, since the website's articles aren't published by a single author, but I just wanted to achieve consensus that it's indeed reliable. – Matthew  - (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My view is that it's reliable enough for its purpose, which is simply to confirm that a few movies are giant monster movies. However, with a little more effort the same movies can probably be found in one or more of the sources under Further reading. The problem is, I don't have full access to their contents. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Should the Jurassic Park films be considered giant-monster movies?
At the time of writing this, the list contains entries for Jurassic Park III and Jurassic World. At first thought, I figured I should add the first two installments in the franchise, but upon reflection I don't feel like they should be considered giant-monster films. Yes, the dinosaurs featured in the series are genetically engineered and not perfectly natural, but for dinosaurs, they aren't abnormally large. Now that I'm putting this in writing, I'm beginning to question the criteria for dinosaur films in general on this list, but that's a larger topic altogether. Anyone else have thoughts? – Matthew  - (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On the subject of dinosaur movies in general, I see arguments for both sides. Your point about their being natural is a good one; and there is a List of films featuring dinosaurs. On the other hand, it's (generally) unnatural to have dinosaurs and humans together in the same place, and the dinosaurs are mostly huge and rampage just like any other giant monster. With this sort of problem, it's best to go with what the sources say. Here, we don't have a lot of guidance; but Landis includes dinosaurs in their list of monsters; and Bellotto and Timpone include them in their lists of giant monster movies. Not exactly a slam dunk, but it's bound to be a matter of opinion anyway.


 * As for the Jurassic Park movies, they do provide a natural explanation for the dinosaurs being there, but otherwise they follow the conventions of monster movies. If we ever do clone dinosaurs, they probably won't be so single-mindedly devoted to killing humans. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

So is it decided that the other JP films should be added? Conclusively, I think Jurassic World is in the clear, since it has the Indominus rex. Also, I feel pretty accomplished to see an article I created be recommended to me. – Matthew  - (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * May we all have our articles recommended to us! As far as I am concerned you can add the other JP films; and no one else has objected. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It's just that I think Jurassic World is the only one that fits the general criteria for giant-monster movie, and even then, it does so loosely. It's a tricky, pointless subject, I suppose. – Matthew  - (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's about right! RockMagnetist(talk) 02:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"it's (generally) unnatural to have dinosaurs and humans together in the same place". Not actually true. The current definition of Dinosaur which we use and the taxonomy and phylogeny of clade Dinosauria includes the living descendants of the dinosaurs: the Birds. See the article on Euornithes. To quote from the article on the Dinosaur: "Dinosaurs are represented on every continent by both extant species and fossil remains." And to quote from the article on the Bird: "The fossil record indicates that birds are the last surviving dinosaurs, termed avian dinosaurs, having evolved from feathered ancestors within the theropod group of saurischian dinosaurs." Per the article on the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, the "non-avian dinosaurs" are extinct but the avian ones survived to the modern day.

This means that there are technically over 10,000 living species of "Dinosaurs", and humans have been interacting with them for most of their existence. We hunt them, we raise them in farms, we keep them as pets, and we eat them. Dimadick (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that the JP movies don't qualify as giant-monster films and that this may be a very good argument in favor of coming up with better inclusion criteria. That said, if the current criteria allow for JP to be included then I'm willing to concede that I'm on the losing side of this argument. DonIago (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Primeval; or, the Continuing Story of Inclusion Criteria
I think that the film Primeval, which is currently included on the list, should be removed. Previously on this talk page, Jaws was brought into question as to whether it is a giant-monster movie. Personally, I think not, as it concerns an animal that isn't mutated, supernatural, etc. Plus, it's aquatic, which I believe should disqualify most giant-monster candidates. Primevals monster is another large but otherwise ordinary creature: a crocodile, which is semi-aquatic, and happens to be smaller than Jaws shark.

I've been writing an awful lot on here lately, and it's because I have a passion for films and I'd like to see this article get up to a higher standard of quality. In order to do that, it absolutely needs a set of inclusion criteria. I think monsters should count if they obey these rules that I have developed: (1) they are a primary focus of their film; (2) they pose a major threat to humans and/or human-made structures on land, and possibly in the sea or air; and (3) they are at least twice the size of what their natural counterpart may be, and are larger than humans.

In regards to rule 3, it would act as a major point of exclusion for Jaws and Primeval. The largest great white shark recorded was around 36ft long, while the shark from Jaws is around 25ft. The crocodile in Primeval is roughly the same size as the animal it was inspired by: the 20ft-long Gustave. On the other side of the coin, we have a monster like King Kong. As most of the largest gorillas are around 5 or 6ft tall, Kong easily passes the criteria at a height of 25-50ft. If anyone else agrees with or would like to expand on this set of criteria, please add to the discussion. – Matthew  - (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I am currently reviewing and familiarising myself with WP:CON and WP:RFC, and am researching and considering bringing attention of this matter to a relevant WikiProject, noticeboard, and/or the village pump. Before doing so, I will keep examining the guidelines for implementing new policies, and I again request that any editors of this article please add to this discussion. – Matthew  - (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I still think the simplest criteria would be: does a reliable source describe the monster as being a giant monster? But I also agree the monster should be the primary focus of the film. DonIago (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

But a non-Wikipedia source doesn't necessarily require themselves to have their own criteria of inclusion. In other words, they have no limit on what they could call a giant-monster movie. Take, for instance, this source, which is cited in the article. It defines Primeval, Jurassic Park III, and Godzilla all as giant-monster films, yet each film features creatures of vastly different sizes and capabilities. I especially draw the line at Primeval, since its crocodile is nearly identical to its real-life inspiration. – Matthew  - (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, but an argument could be made that the fact that an RS has described the movie as a giant monster movie is sufficient grounds for inclusion regardless of the source's own criteria for inclusion. I.e. our criteria would be "it was good enough for them." I'm not necessarily advocating for this, but it does have the benefit of being easily understood. DonIago (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand your point and agree with your logic, but I nonetheless disagree on the whole. With an article that has such debatable entries, a firm line should be drawn in the sand somewhere. A film featuring accurately-sized dinosaurs, like Jurassic Park, could be noted by a source as a giant-monster film. But with common sense, if the animals are faithful to reality, they're hardly giant or monstrous. Unless there's a guideline that proves this mindset wrong, in which case I'd be open to reading it. – Matthew  - (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think none of the sources have made any effort to define "giant monster", so we have some latitude. The key part of WP:LSC that we need to keep in mind is that a selection criterion should be "unambiguous, objective and supported by reliable sources." A rule like "twice the size of their natural counterpart" sounds unambiguous and objective at first glance, but any given species has a natural range of sizes. New sources would be needed for the natural sizes, and if we do our own comparisons it is verging on original research. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We could stipulate that the film both has to be referred to as a giant-monster film and that the monster(s) in question have to be discussed as being greater in size than would be typical for them? That would rule out JP but not King Kong. No reason to go so far as to specify how much greater in size I think, merely that the RS mentions that the size is atypical. DonIago (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But I also think that they should be significantly larger than humans. If we are to enforce that creatures which meet the criteria only have to be significantly larger than their natural counterparts, then anything from a 5-foot tall mutant mosquito to a 350-foot tall Godzilla could qualify, and that seems like a very wide, broad grey area of an inclusion range. – Matthew  - (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd support the addition of a film featuring a 5-foot tall mosquito to this list, as that sounds like a giant monster to me, relatively speaking. You're also begging the question of what qualifies as being "significantly larger than humans", which is the kind of criterion I think we should avoid. DonIago (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In regards to being larger than humans, I mean that an oversized mosquito might be able to smash through a window, while Godzilla can level cities and cause natural disasters like tsunamis and earthquakes. I'm open to reaching a conclusion that something like the mosquito example could be included, but at the moment I find those two entities to be vastly different to the point that I'd find it questionable to categorise them together. – Matthew  - (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we need additional opinions regarding whether the point of this list is monsters that are gigantic relative to their typical sizes, or monsters that are gigantic in a more objective sense. DonIago (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Gustave's (the crocodile's) length from Primeval is given as 30 feet in the film; that's over 30% larger than the record for the species (Crocodylus niloticus), he's a giant to us and to his fellow crocodiles, that's a giant monster! Also, "Giant" is a matter of perception; for example, what's giant to us as humans could very well be small to a sperm whale. Also, were one to encounter a 5 foot long rabbit, one would likely be inclined to describe the rabbit as "giant," even though it's smaller than a person. Lastly, I don't believe the purpose of such lists is to pare them down to as few films as possible. There's no reason to worry about such things as "is the monster the star" or "is a 4-foot bug giant?", as this way leads to madness. There's no way to settle such issues, as the arguments against inclusion are completely subjective. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be discussing what you feel should not be considered inclusion criteria, but I'm not sure based on your message what you feel the criteria should be. Thanks for clarifying! DonIago (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to make it more clear for you, we'll wait for someone else to participate perhaps. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In regards to the "is the monster the star" topic, I'd say Ghostbusters is one of the films that question would address (I believe Ghostbusters was already mentioned further up the talk page). Perhaps, to clear away the confusion of this criteria discussion, the article could be renamed to "List of films featuring giant monsters". – Matthew  - (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As someone who has watched a significant amount of giant monster movies, I don't think that change must be made. Many such films only feature the "star" for a few minutes, even when the movie is all "about" the creature. For example, Godzilla (2014) had less than 10 minutes of monster screen time. "Giant monster films" doesn't imply that the entirety of the film or even the majority has to be filled with giant monsters, just like seeing a film named "Godzilla" doesn't imply that the entirety of the film or even the majority is filled with Godzilla. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well then, rather than screen time, perhaps the criteria should be that the monster is a primary subject in the film (which would therefore include Godzilla yet exclude Ghostbusters). – Matthew  - (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why does excluding "Ghostbusters" help the List of Giant Monster films? What's the incentive or goal in doing so? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ghostbusters is just an example I'm using. My goal is to establish what films are to be included in the list, and which should be excluded. – Matthew  - (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * At least a hundred films with giant monsters have been deleted from this list; it's shorter than when I started to work on it years ago. I don't know about you, but this doesn't seem to "increase encyclopedic knowledge" on the subject to me; yet we are discussing more films to exclude? Let's exclude films without giant monsters, that's pretty simple. No list of rules needed; Giant monsters are either a) bigger than people (9 feet should do as people have never been that tall) or b) bigger than the norm for their species, if their species exists. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, I again ask whether the page should be renamed to "List of films featuring giant monsters". Judging by the criteria that a giant monster would be larger than humans and/or their natural counterpart, I think that new name would be more accurate. – Matthew  - (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Heh. Is it time for an RfC now? Alternately we could try hitting WT:FILM. We just seem to have two or three separate issues and not enough editors expressing opinions. Snark aside, I would like to hear from more editors. DonIago (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I already brought it up on WT:FILM a week ago. Are there any other places we could seek more opinions? – Matthew  - (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm. You could try WT:HORROR and WT:LISTS, which are listed at the top of this page, but short of that I think an RfC would be our best bet for additional opinions. I'd be happy to work with you on putting one together; I'd suggest making it as comprehensive as possible, which in this case would mean making sure we're hitting all of the bases we want to hit with regards to potential criteria. DonIago (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A name change would be very advantageous for me, go ahead. However, I do predict someone will come along with a problem over the word(s) "featuring", "giant", and/or "monster" in the future. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha! I just noticed that DonIago deleted the film "Reptilicus" from this list. Great job increasing encyclopedic knowledge on the subject. I can't even bear to look at the thing anymore. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather than snarking about a deletion, it would be more productive for you to re-add the film with a reliable source establishing that it is considered a "giant-monster film", much as it would be more productive for you to provide a list of what you feel the inclusion criteria should be rather than simply lamenting what you appear to consider exclusionist criteria. You might also consider focusing on content rather than contributors. DonIago (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So, you delete hundreds of films, than decide I should put them back up. Nice delusional little world you live in. Speaking of focusing on content, you should have done that before deleting the list, champ. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:BURDEN and WP:NPA. It is regrettable that someone with as much knowledge on this subject as you appear to possess would apparently rather attack your fellow editors than contribute constructively. I believe we're done at this point. DonIago (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You know what's regrettable? Any "giant monster movie list" without Reptilicus. Please note you weren't attacked, what's insulting is having your work destroyed and then having the guy who destroyed it tell you to do it again. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No work was destroyed. It was preserved in the article's history and could be restored, relatively easily, with the mere addition of a reliable source. Which I believe has already been done at this point. DonIago (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what you should have done from the onset, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. You wanted sources for each entry, you should just go in and add sources for each entry. Less work for everyone, eh? Doctor Kaiju (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I never cease to be amused at the number of editors here who add unreferenced content and then expect others to find the supporting references. Have a read of WP:BURDEN as suggested to discover who really has to provide them. 86.174.158.152 (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We're not going to hear from Doctor Kaiju for a bit, as they were blocked for three days one week. DonIago (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason why your sig reads 'Donlago' when your user name is 'Doniago'? 86.174.158.152 (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I customized my signature; many editors do. DonIago (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the source of confusion is that it's actually DonIago (capital i), not Donlago with an ell. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's been known to happen. :p DonIago (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking of amusement, I'm always amused by those editors who think that just because something CAN be challenged, doesn't mean it should be per WP:BURDEN; perhaps you should read it again until you understand it. Would you like me to quote the relevant bits to you? After all, if the film is playing on Netflix RIGHT NOW, to challenge and remove it is ridiculous. But now the list is ravaged and pathetic; this proves my point for me. You've managed to reduce encyclopedic knowledge on the subject, good job kids. I'll leave you to your work. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In case anyone was inclined to reply to this (I wasn't), the Good Doctor was blocked indefinitely earlier today for making personal attacks, though they've apparently asked to be unblocked. It seems it may be some time before we hear from them again. DonIago (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Page move
Is nobody has any objections, I'll be renaming the page "List of films featuring giant monsters" soon. The purpose of this is to clear the confused waters of inclusion criteria arguments, and to reduce the list's vagueness. With the new name, there'll be no arguments as to whether or not a film as a whole is a "giant-monster movie"; rather, films that show giant monsters onscreen (with sources to back them up) can be included, which is the simplest solution to deciding criteria. – Matthew  - (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's...not actually how I'd read the title based on the word "featuring". King Kong features a giant ape. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow includes giant animals, but I wouldn't consider them "featured". Maybe "List of films with giant monsters", to avoid potential confusion? That naming is consistent with some of the other film list articles. DonIago (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning regarding "featuring" vs. "including", but I disagree that using "with" would promote consistency. List articles that use the word "featuring" typically involve topics that are found within the content of the film.


 * "Featuring" list examples:
 * films featuring dinosaurs
 * films featuring extraterrestrials
 * films featuring hallucinogens
 * films featuring insects
 * films featuring mental disorders
 * films featuring space stations
 * On the other hand, list articles that use the word "with" typically relate to the films' editing styles, musical choices, or accolades.


 * "With" list examples:
 * films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes
 * films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes
 * films with all four Academy Award acting nominations
 * films with associated hip hop songs
 * films with overtures
 * films with post-credits scenes


 * Therefore, it seems as though "featuring" would make more sense in terms of consistency. – Matthew  - (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that the word "featuring" is being used in an ambiguous manner in these cases, especially if one were to think of the similar concept of actors featured in a film (which I believe usually means top billing, or close to it), but if a consensus develops that "featuring" is acceptable usage, I won't fight it. DonIago (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've asked the question at WT:FILM, just to see what others think, if anything, about the matter. DonIago (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How would you feel about "List of films containing giant monsters"? – Matthew  - (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't like the word, as I don't think films really "contain" things, but I do find it less ambiguous than "featuring". "List of giant monsters in film"? DonIago (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd be okay with calling it simply "in film". Anyone else have any thoughts? – Matthew  - (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a new genre for me so my opinions can be discounted but I think a word like "featured" is required to avoid having the list expand to cover any film where an unusually large creature makes an appearance. The lead image at Monster movie makes it clear that the topic concerns films where the monster is central to the story. Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Upon further consideration, calling it just "list of giant monsters in film" would mean that the monster would be the first parameter of the list, or, the list item furthest to the left. This would require reorganisation of the whole list. Plus, using "featured" would keep the list from expanding too excessively. – Matthew  - (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, whether the list should be about any film in which a giant monster appears, or only films "featuring" a giant monster, was a central point of concern that I think fell off the radar in the course of the discussion. If we want to limit this list to films in which the giant monster is central to the film, I'm fine with invoking "featured". DonIago (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Seconded. – Matthew  - (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

On the subject of dragons
I don't think dragons aren't typically seen as being akin to Godzilla, Rodan, etc., so therefore, if a film or films featuring dragons are to be included in this list, I'd highly suggest that they include a source that refers to the aforementioned dragons as "giant monsters" or a similar term. – Matthew  - (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree. There's room for List of films featuring dragons if anyone cares to build such an article. DonIago (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of films featuring giant monsters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070816042408/http://www.raymorton.com/kingkong.html to http://www.raymorton.com/kingkong.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Missing films
Well, maybe someone said that already, but I want to do it too. Obviously I know that lists should cite notable sources. However, sometimes rules are too picky. We should cite websites, articles and magazines, but hear me out please. For example, I added almost all Jurassic Park films with references. But Jurassic World: Dominion can't be there, despite it is obviously in the same genre? If every previous Jurassic Park film is a giant monster film, this is obviously too. Other example: Godzilla is obviously a giant monster. Every his movie is there. But Raiga: God of the Monsters can't be there, because nobody found an article, where it was called a giant monster film?

When you will answer my question, please, don't forget about the logic. We should follow rules, but let's don't forget about it. Thanks for answers. --Дейноніх (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For list articles, sources are required. Also, sequels to films can be in different genres than their predecessors. DonIago (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They can be in different genres, but if dinosaurs in 5 films are considered as giant monsters, they obviously are considered too in the sixth film. --Дейноніх (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the textbook definition of synthesis. DonIago (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)