Board Thread:General Discussions/@comment-31524712-20170319210335/@comment-4820209-20170421014944

Thunderstudent Returns wrote: Project Predacon wrote: Thunderstudent Returns wrote: There are other wiki's to link to for information on real animals. They themselves aren't characters and shouldn't be on the wiki since they aren't Kaiju. You can't have it both ways, either Jaws is added or the Dinos go. That simple. Your argument could be used to apply to any real animal in a movie There're also other wikis to link to for information on the certain super weapons and vehicles used in the Godzilla series. I don't get the argument here. My argument is: Is it's not a Kaiju or a weapon created in a fictional universe to fight one, like say Kiryu THEN IT DOESN'T BELONG ON THE WIKI! Weapons like Kiryu only exist in continuity, Sharks and Dinosaurs like T-Rex and great whites exist or have existed. Therefore to have actual dinosaurs and not include Jaws because he's on the very fringe of what a real animal is, is a double standard. Either we exclude EVERYTHING that exists or existed in real life and link to other wiki's that concern them or we include EVERYTHING that does since it exists in the fictional world and/or is on the fringe of what could be real. Why does the scenario need to be black and white? It's not an "all or nothing" scenario. You can make the argument that, even IF there's a Tyrannosaurus article, it's not a scientific representation, and never existed as it's presented. Like the 1933 King Kong film's, and there's enough of a distinction between it and a real Tyrannosaurus (On top of fiction and reality) that even without the idea of association, you could make an article on it.

Then again, you look to Jaws and you can easily explain almost everything about it. The distinction between it and reality isn't large, and the film's presentation entirely leans toward a more serious and realistic approach to the creature, which only aids in explaining things, compared to King Kong which takes scientific and aesthetic liberties.

There's no double standard between a shark and an anatomically/scientifically incorrect dinosaur, especially within the context of the universes they're in. You don't just take things like that at face value for that reason. Boiling it down to "it was a dinosaur" despite it being more than just the name alone that keeps it here is the issue.