Talk:Clover (creature)/Archive 1

Comments regarding article deletion

Attention. Comments relating to this article's nomination for deletion should be directed to the deletion debate, which may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloverfield (creature). Though you are welcome to discuss the article here, especially ways to improve the article, comments posted here may not be taken into account as part of the deletion debate. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Comic

There is a Japanese manga tie-in detailing events leading up to the start of the movie. It is in Japanese so I do not know what is says but perhaps someone can translate it. http://www.kadokawa.co.jp/tachiyomi/comic/cloverfield/#

Falling object

The falling object is connected to ARG "Hatsui Satellite Works for the Futura" Tagruato used the Hatsui satellite to try to identify a rogue piece that is thought to have fallen off of the Japanese Government's "ChimpanzIII" satellite. Although Hatsui’s work has not yet been able to confirm the identity of the fallen piece, Tagruato scientists and engineers are busily trying to track and recover the fragment. According to Hatsui data, it disappeared into the Atlantic Ocean late last week.--Molobo (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Creature?

First of all, I'm new to posting stuff on Wikipedia, so don't ban me or nothing for doing something wrong, cause I have no idea what wrong would be. Anyway, does anyone have a link to a picture of the creature? A description just isn't going to cut it. I believe we are allowed to link a pic, just not post it up on the main page, right? So links? Google hasn't shown anything promising, just the speculation pics. Delta1z2 (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia :) Unfortunately, without getting appropriate permission (which is extremely difficult), because the creature was concieved entirely under copyright, any image of the creature will be under that copyright. Most images applicable here would be a WP:COPYVIO, not to mention a bit of a spoiler. We are not allowed to link to copyright violations elsewhere on the Internet, nor can we direct link to images from official sites. We can only link to the main page of the official site. -Verdatum (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What about a drawn image of the creature...I have seen a few that are very accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.40.188 (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a picture should be on here. It was a huge mystery as to what the monster was before the film, and people who haven't had a chance to see the film will be severally pissed if it's all ruined by seeing some crappy picture on Wiki. i know I would have been, --72.26.188.195 (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

On further review, such an image may be acceptable if certain conditions are met. For an example of this, see Image:AVP_Xenomorph.jpg. Still, I would wait until the AFD is completed before going through this sort of trouble. I don't know how issues concerning a drawing are viewed in regards to intellectual ownership, likeness rights, and all that stuff. In general, an actual photo is standard over fan-art (for lack of a better term). -Verdatum (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Verdatum about waiting for the result of the AFD. Articles about fictional characters usually have an official picture, but I'm not sure about the legal availability of such a screen shot for fair use as none of the production stills actually show the creature. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As soon as the DVD comes out in June, maybe even before then, there'll be a plethora of stills available to post. Nowadays, fan art and even inaccurate drawings (such as that multi-armed whale) can be posted to show what people thought it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.173.141 (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the possibility of using a fan drawing of the creature. Many of these have sprung up on www.deviantart.com. I believe this should get around the copyright issue while providing an accurate image of the creature. Any other opinions on this? Joetheguy (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The likeness of the monster is still a derivative work and therefore still subject to the control of the primary copyright holder. If it's fair use to show the monster at all, then it's fair use to show an officialy sourced still or concept art image from the film so that should be used for accuracy's sake. In fact it's riskier to use fan-art as it is almost certainly not covered by fair use as it often serves no educational or critical purpose. WP:COPYVIO is irrelevant where there is no non-free alternative and an image of the monster is a helpful illustrative tool and the image is correctly sourced and appropriately attributed - it would then fall in the category of "fair use" as an non-violating educational purpose - see WP:NFC for the guidelines on this 77.98.223.49 (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Description of "Red Sacs"

How comfortable are people with the following statement: "Perhaps the most obvious unusual feature is its external lungs, vaguely resembling an axolotl's external gills (whereas Cloverfield's are red sacs, seen inflating and deflating as it respires)." I presumed they had something to do with hearing -- after they inflated, it looked down below (I thought due to the minor noise). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC) I think the sacs are used to carry sounds farther, like a frog's throat during mating season. That, or it's used as a means to declare its territory. What do you think?Stormfin (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that such a hypothesis is conjecture, which is another form of Original Research, which has no place in Wikipedia. -Verdatum (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they're some sort of heat sensing aspect for the creature? They look like they could act something as filtration systems when submerged. Unfortunately, we have to rely on hypothesizing because little to no actual information has been released on the creature's bio itself. Godzilla's Heir (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically, isn't the opinion that the sacs are lungs just conjecture/private research? It does seem more plausible that they are ears, since the creature had actual nose slits. Not trying to stir up trouble, but I think any of the information about it should be taken out until it is proven they are lungs, since I am personally not convinced that they were and I think there are others that agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.195.118.161 (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel that it is obvious that the red sacs are related to breathing. I think it goes a little too far to say they are "lungs". It might be more informative and neutral to say that "the creature had red sacs on either side of its head that appeared to inflate and deflate as if they were being used for breathing air." Something along those lines is informative without going TOO far. Joetheguy (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be possible they were heat sensors to help the creature locate prey, and that, without mention, would be a very helpful in the cold depths from which it came. That would also explain why it saw and then attacked HUD after puffing them.

They could be multi-purpose as well, but for now, we should stop all speculation and keep it off the article until we have an official source. Godzilla's Heir (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I felt that they maybe additional lung organs to supply oxygen to the monsters large brain. JR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.234.96 (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there some source for this kind of stuff? That way we won't end up filling out the description with anything misguiding. Godzilla's Heir (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I took out the speculation on their purpose for now. We've got no way of knowing what those things are supposed to be for. They could be for breathing, or hearing, or making noise, or just be there to help it attract a lady city-ravaging monster. Personally, since I think the only time we saw them was when it was paying very careful attention to something very small (to it), I got the impression that they were sense organs of some sort. But that's irrelevant.

Are there "two inflating pink/red sacks on either side", for four total? I can't tell if that was intentional or if the sentence is just a little unclear. I could have sworn it was one on each side, but I could be wrong there - they weren't on screen for very long. Is there a still out there yet? -- Vary | Talk 16:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's all speculation. I noticed that the sacs appeared to be disgorging "parasites" - or at least, SOMETHING was falling out of them. Which seems to indicate that the "parasites" are in actual fact an intergral part of tne creature (given that they come from a specfic organ). If they were indeed "Parasites" wouldn't they have been crawling all over the surface of the creature's body? (which would have been better in my opionion).The fact they were being emitted by the creature suggests that they are in fact baby monsters, does it not? -- CptOatsy —Preceding comment was added at 20:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, we have good, cited information from the filmmakers that those fellas were parasites. -- Vary | Talk 20:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I know. I'm just saying they made a bad design decsion to have them coming out of his "ears". And as I said - the function of which is entirely speculation - I was indulging my need to speculate on the discussion page, rather than the article itself ;)

infobox

What's the deal with this infobox? Is it based on some template or entirely made up? If made up, why make up fields just to state "unknown"? What's the deal with the "major enemies" part? That's just the major enemy we know of from the movie. For all we know, he has a long-standing rivalry with Ted Turner that he just doesn't like to talk about. It comes off as a whole bunch of conjecture that is attempting to seem more weighty than it actually deserves. -Verdatum (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that the so-called "First appearance" is the creature's only appearance, which shows that it's been a knee-jerk reaction to create this article about the creature after his one appearance. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed it down a bit, but I still don't like it. Awaiting AFD. -Verdatum (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

To go along with the supposed enemies of the creature - Who/what is the Tagruato Corp.? I read in the main article of the movie that Tagruato is a Japanese oil company which was doing drilling work and that more about it is related to the manga of the creature. There should be some section in the article discussing how the US and Tagruato Corp are the enemies of the creature, rather than something which is barely a description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.40.190 (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I had the same question. A quick Google search revealed the fictional company's website. I presume this to be part of the Alternative reality game, but I have no patience for those and I didn't persue it any further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdatum (talk • contribs) 18:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Commensal creatures"

There are numerous claims about the relationship between the two types of creature. All of them are completely unsupported, and use weasel words exposing them as WP:OR. I've removed the bulk of it except for the section title. I only leave that in place, as I don't have a better word that doesn't draw such conclusions. There is no evidence to prove the creatures have a commensal, parasitic, symbiotic, or phoresy type relationship. Using such biological terms gives undue weight to this article on a fictional creature. Find an interview with a crew member involved in character design talking about biological considerations in the design, and we can include that...but I doubt you will at this time. -Verdatum (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved mislocated deletion discussions

Note, I've moved the comments that were on this talk page related to deletion discussion to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cloverfield (creature). It seems people kept on seeing the talk page discussions and extending them vs. reading the notice at the top of the talk page, as well as in multiple replies saying the discussion shouldn't take place here. Hopefully this will stop it. If anything, it's a good faith effort to remove some clutter. -Verdatum (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Help us"

I made this edit because while it is generally accepted that the original work may be used as a source in an article on a fictional topic, any synthesization or interpretation of that information is WP:OR and has no place in Wikipedia. If you can find an interview from the production crew that states that they purposefully did this, then fine. Otherwise, this looks a lot like your standard Paul is dead theories, only without all the notable independent resources. Oh yeah, and linking to a bootlegged youtube clip is a pretty blatent WP:COPYVIO. -Verdatum (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me I'm fairly new to editing - but shouldn't we include the possibility of the Cloverfields survival. Unfortunetly I cannot find the soundclip from a source which Wikipedia will accept and currently have only found it here: </nowiki>http://1-18-08.blogspot.com/2008/01/clovefield-monster-its-still-alive.html</nowiki>137.186.148.131 (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You're forgiven :) And I definately understand where you are coming from. Unfortunately, unless there is a reputable source voicing the possibility of survival, it is an unverifiable claim brought about by Original Research. You can use the work of fiction itself for the purposes of obvious and reasonable facts related to the work, but not to put forth conjecture. Otherwise, it opens up the floodgates for pages and pages of what this creature may or may not be; which wouldn't be very encyclopedic at all. As is (I believe), the article does not state whether the creature lived or died in the movie, which is perfectly appropriate. And yes, unfortunately, linking to any media that has been bootlegged the movie is a WP:COPYVIO and must not be included unless it can be shown to be an instance of Fair use. -Verdatum (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Parasites

The parasites look more like shrimp to me, than spiders or crabs. Any objections?Stormfin (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this kind of analysis violates Wikipedia's policy of no original research. Replacing an unsubstantiated description with another unsubstantiated description is ultimately fallacious. The whole article is full of these fallacious, unsubstantiated descriptions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If the movie showed the monster having a particular characteristic, such as walking with its fists, then that can be mentioned in the article without trouble. OR only applies to speculation, such as what the function of something is (like the sacs on its head). 130.49.157.75 (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe both you and erik are in agreement. But saying what it "looks like" in a manner similar to seeing shapes in clouds is OR. -Verdatum (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm in disagreement with having any sort of in-depth description of the creature. We're not scientists, and we don't "dissect" this fictional creature with scientific terminology. If there was a zoologist exploring the plausibility of this creature in the real world, such a description would be independently acceptable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely agree with this. It seems to be making assumptions that a work of fiction must follow established rules in biology/zooology et cetera which is not true. We've been removing the more rediculous examples of this, but no need to blank the section or anything. -Verdatum (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparing the creatures to another fictional creature from Half Life 2 is no better, so I removed that. Editors, please present facts, do not interpret them. -Verdatum (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell? All I did was just ask if anyone agreed with me in saying that the parasites resemble shrimp, not spiders or crabs. How the hell did this degrade into a debate about Half-Life 2?

For the parasites you could probably use a “Arachnid/Crustacean-like” link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.133.171 (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

On a side-note, here's a couple things about the Cloverfield and the parasites:

• It's not pale, it's more of a dirty gray.
• It's legs are significantly shorter than its arms, as it knuckle-drags. During the scenes when Rob Hud rescue Beth, it's walking upright towards Beth's appartment. We can see that it's arms almost touch the ground.
• It does have a long tail. If you watch carefully during the chopper seen when it's being bombed, you'll see it.
• The parasite's eyes are not green. That's from the infrared vision on the camera.
• It was Hud who commented on being dragged away by the shrimp.
• I commented on the parasites resembling shrimp because, well, they look like shrimp. Or lobsters. They're long, vaguely sausage-shaped, and...Yeah. No OR, just what I see. My whole school agrees with me anyways. Besides, Crabs are wider than they are long, and most spiders are basically a circle. Shrimp are sausage-shaped.
• Cloverfield does not have eight limbs, it has six: two legs, two arms, and two dangly, vestigial, t-rex arms around the middle.
• It doesn't jump "long distances"; after the carpet bombing, it basically lunges out of the smoke.
• After Marlena was bitten by the Shrimp, she blew up while being dragged away by Haz-Mat to a tent; this suggests that a) She's being quarentined to prevent spread of infection or pathoge; b) it's infectious and very heavily contagious; or c) all of the above.

That is also a bit of speculation. As the creatures have been identified by Reaves as parasites, there are a myriad of reasons for her subsequent destruction. If the parasites evolved to feed off the blood of the bigger monsters, then it is a good possibility that their bite contains an anti-coagulant. Or, like some predators, venom designed to breakdown tissue from the inside to make digestion easier. But until more official information is released (if any) about them, it’s all a matter of speculation as to their evolutionary traits. 199.107.68.166 (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)endofzero

what about the possibility that the bite somehow spread the parasite into her body. that would explain the panic and need for guns to be brought into the quarentine. 76.247.219.178 (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Very unlikely, her destruction took place in a matter of an hour or so. That would mean that this deep-sea parasite would have a very short gestation period, which is highly improbable given its size and the environmental stress it would face in its "natural" habitat. Historically, parasites don't operate like that anyways, and they were going for realism with this movie. It doesn't explain the need for guns or the panic, which is pretty obvious. They were operating with information of creatures that was only a few hours old. They knew the bite did something highly destructive, but I doubt they knew exactly what it was doing. It was very obvious that they knew about the parasite, hence the need for guns. Not to protect them from "infected" people, but to protect from scavenging parasites.75.70.69.189 (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)endofzero

-The monster is not 500 feet tall; According to Cloverfieldclues, it is between thirty-five to forty stories tall. Savvy?Stormfin (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your personal descriptions, considering that you're disputing other people's personal descriptions, is still original research. As for Cloverfieldclues, it's a blog, hardly a reliable source. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Further, according to this interview with the director, it was an imporant design decision that the creature be white (though I'm not sure if it's as unique as he claims....Moby Dick (who by the way also doesn't have his own article, despite being signfigantly more notable.)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdatum (talk • contribs) 05:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

MOAB??? Where in the movie is it mentioned that this is the shell used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afer1500 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just to gouse the fire a bit, cloverfieldclues.com released those production noted and it said something about the parasites being a "post-birth ritual" after revitalizing. Can someone reference it? Godzilla's Heir (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Original research

Can someone please restore the {{or}} tags that were removed by Mugatu3333 without explanation? We're editors, not zoologists, so we should not purport to be reliable sources in describing a fictional creature in the zoological sense. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. IN the teaser trailers that are constantly on television, the narrator says "it's 25 stories tall." HOw did 500 feet come out of this? You can't compare it to the size of buildings. Stop conjecturing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.45.115 (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a reasonable reference if you ask me. However, according to the current article, it says the trailer says it's 30 stories tall, according to god knows what, it's an "estimated" 43 stories tall, and according to you it's 25 stories tall. Meanwhile, I watched about 10 commercials on youtube, and I can't find this commercial. But if you are confident, feel free to edit the article as such, and cite the commercial as your reference. -Verdatum (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The height varies depending whether it's rearing up on its legs or walking/crawling normally. That may be the disparity. Buspar (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at one of the cited sources connected to the statement that "JJ Abrams said in an interview that the monster is not, in fact, an alien. The monster has been residing deep within the ocean for hundreds of years in a dormant-like state." The site says no such thing. In fact the image referenced is on the falling object scene. I would either like to see the actual source of the claim of have it edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.51.67 (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does when you highlight over the words so it's not a plot spoiler for everyone.--Mugatu3333 (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Nearly all of the information on the monster, besides interviews and what we can see of it, is suppostition and conjecture, both of which are included in other articles, such as the article on Lost (TV series). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.173.141 (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Separation anxiety

This article been added to Fictional characters with mental illness. I'd like to point out that separation anxiety is, to quote Psychology Today's Diagnosis Dictionary, "a normal stage in an infant's development", which is not quite the same thing as separation anxiety disorder, a bona fide mental/behavioural problem. --Diagonal P. (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Two articles on the same thing

Well, Cloverfield (creature) and Cloverfield Monster are two articles on the same thing. We should probably do something about this. --Addict 2006 17:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Carbon copy of original research. I'll mention it at the AFD. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: Cloverfield Monster now redirects to this article. (And that sounds good to me.) -Verdatum (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision

I've revised the article with a lot of redundant content from the film article, as like I've said in the AFD, it's been film-centric. There's no information on the manga, and the reviews were very sparse in even describing the monster. I see no real sign of a so-called "franchise", but I'd rather have a decent, redundant article than one with interpretations and other kinds of original research. Enjoy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rescue?

The rescue tag was removed, but the tag asks not to remove it until the completion of the AFD. That being said, a couple people have expressed the sentiment that this article has been rescued. I dunno, should the tag be restored? -Verdatum (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah. When this started there were four references, two or three of which were blogs; now it has 20, with sourced quotes from the writers and producers, information on the manufacturing of a toy by Hasbro, etc. I think it's prettymuch rescued at this point. Adding it just over-banners the top of the article. JDoorjam JDiscourse 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't argue with that, fine by me :) -Verdatum (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Critical Analysis

Peter Howell writes for the Toronto Star, not the Star Tribune. The link to his article goes to the Toronto Star webpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.165.122 (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I suppose the confusion was from the website, which says, "The Star". It's fixed now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(5 legs)

why does the page say that the cloverfield monster has five leg when it this video monster of the monster it has two leg Hellflyer2 (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tw8KwGkraQ4&feature=relatedHellflyer2 (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the Wired.com source in the article says he has five legs. It's really difficult to tell in that tape how many limbs the monster has. If you have a reliable source saying it has two legs, though, then talking about how to reconcile the two sources is appropriate. JDoorjam JDiscourse 03:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just seen the movie for the second time and viewed the creature best I could, then did I quick sketch. From what I remember, the creature has four legs, two arms on the chest, the front two legs have two joints with what I could describe as a 'backwards foot' on the front two. Can't say much for the feet on the back legs, but I believe they're plain single jointed. But not sure on that one. But I'm pretty dang sure it has four legs and two arms. And a tail.--97.84.204.207 (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is why we need to stick to an independent source for this. We can't banter among ourselves to contribute our own opinion of how many limbs there are. Hopefully there'll be a reference describing the zoological background of this creature fully at some point. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why there's any question to the number of limbs the beast has. I've seen the movie twice and while it's rare that we see the entire monster on screen at one time, it DOES happen. It has two pairs of larger limbs, legs if you wish, which reach all the way to the ground. In most of the scenes we see it in, it's walking on all four of these, but not always. Further, it has an additional pair of limbs, arms perhaps, located in between the two larger pairs. These are significantly smaller and do not reach the ground. In the clip linked above, they're visible, dangling between the larger pairs of limbs. Finally, while at first glance that video makes it look like there's a fifth large limb, that is actually the creature's tail, which is also seen numerous times in the film. Now maybe this qualifies as OR, I dunno, but it doesn't make sense to me that there's any question of this issue when the limbs are clearly visible more than once during the movie. It's not an opinion, either, it's direct observation. Anyone capable of sight should be able to make the same observation. Toroca (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Parodies

Hello! I just watched The Soup and they spoofed the Cloverfield monster for the second week in a row. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you add that to a new section? "Cultural references" is commonly used with movie characters to establish notability. Do you know the exact date of broadcast? Buspar (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The dates that the monster was spoofed on the show are January 18th and 25th. Joel MacHale, the host, refers to it as "Good Cloverfield," and threatens to get the "Cloverfield whisperer." -DM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.192.64.214 (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Cloverfield the name of the monster?

The creature has been referred to as Cloverfield when in the flm the monster is never named(Much like Dr Frankenstein's creature.) Wouldnt it be more accurate to call it the Cloverfield Monster, instead of Cloverfield? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.244.213 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the article: Its name was the case designate "Cloverfield", given to it by the United States government following its attack on New York City in the film. Reeves compared the titling of the creature to the Manhattan Project, explaining, "And it's not a project per se. It's the way that this case has been designated... It's how they refer to this phenomenon [or] this case." Hope this helps! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Eric, you should read that again. That is the case name. Otherwise, he wouldn't refer to the actual creature as "creature" throughout. Furthermore, the opening of the movie says the "incident" in "Central Park" was called Cloverfield, not the creature. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

“ As for that "case designate" reference, anyone who has seen the clips from the film knows that "Cloverfield" is the case name that the government has assigned to whatever or whoever is doing all that destruction in New York.

"In the way that the Manhattan Project was the name of that program, that's what this is," says the director, though he specifies that doesn't mean that it was created by the government the way the Manhattan Project was. "And it's not a project per say. It's the way that this case has been designated. That's why that is on the trailer, and it becomes clearer in the film. It's how they refer to this phenomenon [or] this case." ”

Seems like it's recognizing the creature. It's certainly not referring to the incident or the videotape. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The Manhattan Project was not the names of the individuals that were part of it. It was the name of the events, not the people. Cloverfield, as someone already pointed out, is the name of the destroyed Central Park/Island of Manhattan. Why? Because bombed cities tend to have clover fields cover over them, since clovers are able to gestate quickly. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

People seem to be vague on understanding of what that ("Manhattan Project" and therefore "Cloverfield") means militarily. America did not Manhattan Project Hiroshima, nor did the project produce a "Manhattan" of any kind. and the Allies did not Operation Overlord on Beaches really called Omaha Beach,Gold Beach etc in WW2. For that matter, we didn't start a Desert Storm or an Iraqi Freedom. It's a normally nonsensical Codename for a project, thing or dossier, but it's not really the real name for anything. They are codenames - non-revealing identifying tags so as to maintain secrecy as required. Reading what I have written, it's clear that it's a bit condescending, which I don't intend, but I want to be as clear as possible so I'm leaving it as-is. 77.98.223.49 (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The opening says that the tape contains "multiple sightings of case designate 'Cloverfield', which says to me that the code name is meant to refer to the monster. It certainly doesn't refer to Central Park - the intro heading gives another name for central park - Incident site something or other, don't remember the number. If the incident was being given the code name 'Cloverfield', rather than the thing that caused the incident, might that intro not have read 'Cloverfield site whatever the number was'? In absence of a better name, I think this one's acceptable for now. If the monster gets a real name later on, we can always move the article. -- Vary | Talk 17:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the opening says that it is a site renamed Cloverfield, i.e. Central Park/Manhatten was renamed. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it says "U.S. CASE DESIGNATE 'CLOVERFIELD' / FOUND IN THE AREA KNOWN FORMERLY AS CENTRAL PARK". Cloverfield is the name of the incident, as the movie's creators have said more than once.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 05:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And the case is about Central Park. Please, its in the grammar right there. It is not the name of the Monster, and the Monster cannot equal the word "case". Ottava Rima (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, re: your message on my talk page, the name 'Cloverfield' has nothing to do with bombed out fields becoming covered in clover. Cloverfield is the name of the exit Abrahms took to get to work. So, while it's a neat coincidence, it's completely irrelevant to the discussion. -- Vary | Talk 06:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Proof? Because there are statements by the director that state that the word refers to the incidents at the end, so they kept the name instead of switching to another name which referred to another part of the movie. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the above discussion Talk:Cloverfield#Naming of the movie (my mistake), or the main cloverfield article, the references for this fact have already been cited. Could you please cite yours? -Verdatum (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this shows that the term Cloverfield is not for the monster: " that you would have a project or a file called Cloverfield and it would be referring to a crazy violent monster attack". The object is attack. It is not monster. That should be enough to quell any dispute. 136.242.32.174 (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I must add that the only link cited in "Naming of the movie" does not meet any standards I have ever seen for a credible source. It is a homepage without any links or sources for its quotes. Sorry. 136.242.32.174 (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, not a credible source. However, two other references are in Cloverfield#Development. Regardless, I think we agree on the point. -Verdatum (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the original question, I think this is a valid point, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to feel like pressing the issue just yet. -Verdatum (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

History?

The section currently titled 'History' covers subjects normally filed under 'Appearances' in an article like this one. It's better than the name I changed it from ('Fictional history') but it's still not the right name for the section. The argument that the revert is for 'consistency' puzzles me, because a) that wasn't the original section heading and b) it's very un-wiki to refuse a change like this one solely because it's a change. -- Vary | Talk 22:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Recently retitled "Character background." That, too, sounds like the section contains information on what the monster is and where it came from, which we don't have at the moment. Are there any objections to 'Appearances' for this section? That's the usual title for a section that covers the information this one does. -- Vary | Talk 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Dead Parasites

I do not know if this should be added to the article, but (may be spoiler) in the Field Hospital in the movie, it seems that there were several dead or wounded parasites being carried through, apparently killed by Military small arms. Then one is killed by Rob Hawkins at the Apartment bulding. This may be original research, so I apologize if it is.--User:M10 101, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Whale

I googled Cloverfield and saw some peoples sketches. One of which had the head and tail of a blue whale with multiple fins, it looked like a nuclearly mutated whale. Then I saw the image on this page. Which one is the real one? 70.51.65.86 (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The lead sentence needs adjustment as it doesn't refer to the article topic. Since Cloverfield is not the name of the creature, I'm not quite certain how to fix it. -Verdatum (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We could add bolding around 'monster' as well? That'd require delinking 'fictional monster.' Without a clear proper name, the bolded title is going to be a little hard to handle. Per the style guide, a bolded title is not absolutely required, but it's so expected that an article looks wrong without one, doesn't it?

The damn thing is almost certainly going to have to acquire an actual official name sooner or later, and it'll be a lot easier once it does, of course, but we may have to satisfy ourselves with 'not quite perfect' for the time being. -- Vary | Talk 07:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We could also rework it to begin "The monster(/creature/whatever) of the film "Cloverfield" (or "Cloverfield" with no bolding, I suppose)..." But I'm really not sure where to go from there, since that obviously can't just replace the first clause of the current sentence, and I'm not sure I hate the current version enough (or that the alternative is enough of an improvement) to spend time trying to restructure the entire intro to make it work. -- Vary | Talk 20:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Good options. I think I agree. Unless/until someone comes up with a wonderful improvement, 'not quite perfect' is fine by for now :) -Verdatum (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

ACTUAL CLIP OF THE CLOVERFIELD MONSTER

http://www.beyondhollywood.com/introducing-the-real-cloverfield-monster/

Here it is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.14.61 (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Found Photo of CLOVERFIELD MONSTER!

tell me we can use this. this is exactly it. http://jpizzle6298.deviantart.com/art/Cloverfield-Monster-75884810 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.94.105 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think we can, unfortunately. It's not bad, but it's still fanart, which brings up problems with OR and copyright. -- Vary | Talk 23:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

awwwwwwwwwww. thats it. that's seriously it though. even though its fan art we can't use it for like maybe. . . one time? please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.94.105 (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

well, i found another that looks closer. its a body layout design and it has paramount printed on it so it might be legit. can we maybe use this one. please????? http://godzillasamurai.deviantart.com/art/Cloverfield-beast-body-layout-75387394

I'm not sure if you are kidding or not. The only image I could imagine being suitable for inclusion at this time would be from an official presskit. If it was shown in a television commercial, that could also be screencapped for Fair use. There are all sorts of legal rammifications of using an artist's rendition of a copyrighted design to represent the creature. Be patient, a photo can be added later. -Verdatum (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

k, i understand. altho u got to admit thats and the one i posted above is pretty much the monster. u no it's cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.94.105 (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

why did someone delete the Official Hidden Clue on the movie posters? The monster is seen in the clouds to the right of the Statue of Liberty's arm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.232.61 (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I can only assume you mean the mirror image trick on the smoke plume? If someone could find an official source that declared this was intentional, this might be ok. Unfortunately, it will probably be considered an unlicensed derivitive work which is unfortunately a copyright violation...but I'm no lawyer. If you mean the entire poster, then I don't think it's a good enough image of the creature, and you'd still need to prove that it is supposed to be the creature. -Verdatum (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm blind, but I just don't see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.253.8 (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)