Talk:Yonggary (1999 film)

	Film portal 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
	This article is supported by the Korean cinema task force.

Korea Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Korean cinema task force.

Archives

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Yonggary (1999 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://mjsimpson-films.blogspot.com/2015/04/interview-shim-hyung-rae.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Information and Expansion

This article is incomplete and is missing important information on the film's home media release and reception. This needs to be added to the article in order to meet wikipiedia's guidelines and standards of a well developed article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly duplicated references

There are 5 references that are all titled 'Production Notes', which caused a 'duplicated citations' tag to be placed on the page. I changed the titles to 'Production Notes 1', 'Production Notes 2', etc. The links are all dead and I could not find archived copies, so this article is almost entirely unreferenced. Leschnei (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1999/2001

Please stop adding secondary release dates for the film in the lead. On wikipedia, we go by the first known release date in the lead (see MOS:FILM). Do not re-add it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to request again to not format the lead with slashes or other formatting between MOS:FILM. The article is being continually edited by IPs without any sources or follow-up on the talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: There are IP users that make this edit that don't actually look at the Talk page. Might I suggest pursuing temporary semi-protection if it goes too far? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jd22292: I'd suggest that myself, but we've already gone through what I believe is two rounds of semi-protections. Users just sits, waits, comes back and makes the edits. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write

I've cleared out the sources that were linking to long deleted Facebook images. These would most likely fail WP:SPS. Anonymous IPs keep adding unsourced information to these pages and seem to avoid discussing anything on the talk page. lets try to keep it sourced folks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The plot seems unlikely. Search for the text "Yonggary is of Irish-Italian descent". Apparently a joke. AcidHorse (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should a separate article be made for the 2001 edition?

To start my request for a consensus, I'd like to quote an opinion given to me by administrator Samsara at RfPP:

"There seems to be conflict stemming from, It was later re-released with updated special effects and a different story as 2001 Yonggary on January 20, 2001 which had a longer running time of 95 minutes. I noticed particularly the phrase, different story. It occurred to me that if the story is different, a separate article might be merited, similar to how we treat Power Rangers and its source material separately (but do not in the case of simpler re-releases such as re-releases with updated special effects of the original Star Wars trilogy)."

I have to agree here. If the story were altered in the 2001 version just enough, we could make a separate article dedicated to that film, thus (partially) avoiding the whole "1999/2001" issue that has taken place for a while now. What do you guys think? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that would be okay if there was enough information to merit a change between two articles. This is a pretty obscure film and without detail from the sources I have, its not clear what version of the film is being talked about anywhere. I'd split it if the information was easier to clear up. Otherwise...it seems like it will not help much.Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think an alternative would be to spread out the first sentence of the lede a bit more so as to state at the outset that the material was released in two different configurations, at two different time points - something along the lines of "is a science fiction monster film released in South Korea in 1999, and re-released with an altered plot and updated special effects in 2001. It was directed by Shim Hyung-rae and is a remake of the 1967 film of the same name. The second release was distributed in the United States and Canada as Reptilian." Thoughts? Samsara 08:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would cover it. We just don't really need a second article if we can cover this in a sentence. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done; decided to WP:BEBOLD and add it in. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the 1999 version, but I heard in that version, Yonggary is the villain and is eventually killed by the military. 168.69.254.243 20:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is "the city" in fact Los Angeles?

"At one point you can see a motorcycle cop trying to shoot Yonggary, and he's in an LAPD uniform, and later, you can see many Los Angeles buildings when Yonggary is airlifted away. In my opinion calling the city "the city" is generic and there's plenty of evidence to support that it's LA."

Unless you can provide a source that outright confirms this, it's just pure speculation and should not be included. Armegon (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not speculation, just watch the actual film a pause it at that point when the motorcycle cop tries to shoot Yonggary. 104.57.183.127 (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)