Talk:Clover (creature)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clover (creature) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Clover (creature) was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 29, 2008	Articles for deletion	Kept
June 22, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
October 18, 2017	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Tokusatsu

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tokusatsu, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tokusatsu on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TokusatsuWikipedia:WikiProject TokusatsuTemplate:WikiProject TokusatsuTokusatsu articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1

/Archive 2

/Archive 3

Large Scale Aggressor

On the Cloverfield Special Investigation Mode of the BlueRay disk for Cloverfield the monster is called the "Large Scale Aggressor," or, "LSA" for short. [1] That should probably be the name for this article. --Is this fact...? 02:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this is "probably" right conclusion. Although you have a reliable source where it is refered to as such, "Clover" does as well. I think "Clover" is preferred according to ~~WP:COMMON~~WP:COMMONNAME and remains that way until the creature is commonly referred to as "Large Scale Aggressor". Further, I believe "Large Scale Aggressor" is a generic term, and in this fictional universe, it could be used to refer to any large scale aggressor. -Verdatum (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special Investigation Mode

I'm really new to anything Wikipedia-related besides reading the articles, so this may be a stupid post. I just post this because I'm not too sure on how to edit a page and make the information I have fit into the article well. Anyway, on the special investigation mode of the recent Blu-Ray release of Cloverfield, a lot of information is given regarding the creature and the parasites, such as size, origins, and biology. I'm going to try to incorporate as much of the relevant information as I can, but I hope a more experienced editor can maybe clean it up some once I finish, or add anything I missed. 70.57.253.164 (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to say, I can't edit this article. My account is only a day old, and I don't remember my login anyway. A link to the Special Investigation transcript is here: [2] for anybody willing to do the edits to make the article more informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.253.164 (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Clover (creature)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Lead needs expansion... no mention of reception, etc.
Newspaper/magazine publishers in refs need italics. (random example; Boston Globe)
"The creature was realized by visual effects supervisor Kevin Blank and Phil Tippett's company Tippett Studio." - was realized by? Not sure what that's supposed to mean...
"Abrams described the creature as a "baby"" - does this need to be quoted?

Overall an interesting read. Leave me a note when done please. Cheers, giggy _(:O) 05:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the things you have noted. Let me know if you have more, or if it meets the GA standard. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first point makes no sense. They want a description of the reception of a monster? The last two points are nonsensical. 'Was realised by' is perfectly good English, and if Abrams himself is being quoted, why shouldn't there be quote marks? It's not like a 30-storey monstrosity is the image that springs to mind for the word 'baby.' Herr Gruber (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This GAN has passed, and this is now a good article! If you found this review helpful, please consider helping out a fellow editor by reviewing another good article nomination. Help and advice on how to do so is available at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, and you can ask for the help of a GAN mentor, if you wish.

Cheers, giggy _(:O) 06:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hasbro Stopping Cloverfield Toy Production

I recently heard that Hasbro stopped production of the Cloverfield toy has stopped production. Can anyone tell me if this is true or not? ---- Iconic_D December 5th, 2008, 9:11PM (UTC)

no its out now you can get it if you want its avallible on the internet im getting one soon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloverbeatme!! (talk • contribs) 00:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clover as name of creature

The term's use is extremely limited... used only as a nickname among the production staff. The context of the movie dose not name the creature. Using the term is very casual, inside and fan geek. WP:JARGON applies here. We should not use the "nickname" casually throughout the article. Noting the nickname in the first paragraph, or in the context of production is sufficient. --Knulclunk (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going by your reasoning, it's not valid that the article is named "Clover", to which I'm not sure I disagree. Perhaps it should be called "Cloverfield creature" or something along those lines. --uKER (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was a debate shortly after the movie came out, see the archives. We should not allow the article's current, compromised title lead us to poor editorial prose. "Clover" is fine in the context of a production element, but not as a plot or character element.--Knulclunk (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing as I requested, Knulclunk. Now that I see your reasoning, I don't have any problem with this. As you said, it can continue to be called "Clover" in context of production and design. And even though it doesn't end up affecting the wording of the current revision, I seem to recall that the packaging for the Hasbro toy referred to the toy as "Clover" (can't confirm, don't really care too much). -Verdatum (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a receipt some guy got when buying him, and it refers to it as "Cloverfield movie monster". --uKER (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on edits

I just wanted to go on record to say that I intended to undo the doings of a previous editor who blanked the article turning it into a redirect, and I actually did, only to later accidentally undo myself, redoing the changes I intended to revert. Sorry about that. --uKER (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clover's Amphibious Nature

I'm going to remove "[NOTE:THE MONSTER IS NOT AMPHIBIOUS]" from the creature design section. It doesn't stylistically fit. The first sentence after this, the "note" is contradicted. Pizzini3000 (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Clover (creature). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clover (creature). 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/20121010151841/http://bloody-disgusting.com/news/11245/ to http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/11245

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Community reassessment

Clover (creature)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: As noted, this article does have problems with sourcing and the writing style. Improvements have not been made yet, and there has been no objection to delisting.Challenger.rebecca (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to bump in to this article fairly recently and was quite shocked to find out that this was promoted to GA status even though a number of claims in the article require citations. This shouldn't be listed for now until those citation templates (and that one that requests a clarification) are resolved. Blue sphere 06:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: The article is not substantive, the lead does not touch base on main points, the content is largely in-universe and the one external link is for the film and not Clover. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 07:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]