Talk:Cloverfield (franchise)

Move? [2016]

Since the franchise is described as the Cloververse, should the article's title be moved to Cloververse? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Best to keep it at the current title, consistent with other film franchises, and more obvious and WP:RECOGNIZABLE to the world at large, than to something only a genre fan would understand. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm also for the title being "Cloververse". There is no "Cloverfield franchise" (which they would be if the latest one was called Cloverfield 3: God Particle for instance). There's just a series of movies set in a common universe. About the recognizability of a "Cloverfield franchise", I challenge that. I have never seen mention of a "Cloverfield franchise" in any publication. I didn't hear people talking about 10CL as Cloverfield 2, and a Google search for "Cloverfield franchise" throws a meager 3000 something results, with "Cloververse" having about 50% more than that. If anything, we can always have the "Cloverfield (franchise)" redirect, but the current title is inaccurate. --uKER (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Not having received any replies in over two weeks, I'm attempting this move again. To back it up, I'd like to reiterate that despite the alleged recognizability (easily disputable by Google search result counts), the title must be technically accurate, and there has not been any official source saying there's such thing as a Cloverfield franchise. To cover that issue, we can keep the present "Cloverfield (franchise)" redirect, the same way we have redirects for plausible typos. I'd like to provide also for justification, the contrast with the Divergent film series, in which the series is officially titled after the first film, each subsequent title carrying the first one's name before their titles (The Divergent Series: Insurgent, The Divergent Series: Allegiant). --uKER (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

´

Requested move 4 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Cloverfield (franchise) → Cloververse – Per the reasons exposed in the talk above. The title is inaccurate. There has been no official mention of the existence of a so called franchise. When they launched 10CL and when announcing God Particle, they always refer to it as a shared universe, not a franchise. See contrast with Divergent above. The current title can serve as a redirect to handle potential searches on the term. uKER (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME for the series is Cloverfield. Calling the article itself "Cloververse" is too obscure due to the fact that the series as a whole's films are titles Cloverfield. Though per the article, J. J. Abrams has called the series franchise "Cloververse" ... again, it's not the WP:COMMONNAME. Steel1943 (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

So Abrams gave it a name but we're going to name the article after a misinformed crowd-given denomination. Also, going by the "'Cloverfield franchise" rationale, 10 Cloverfield Lane would then become Cloverfield 2 I suppose? Because not only there has been no mention of a franchise. It has been explicitly mentioned that 10 Cloverfield Lane is NOT a sequel to Cloverfield. Admittedly, making 10CL part of the same universe was an afterthought. A proper sequel (probably carrying the name Cloverfield again, be it with a subtitle or just numbered 2, and with a plot much tightly related to the first film) is expected to come out at some point. Then how does the whole thing work? The three we have now are the Cloverfield franchise, so what do we call Cloverfield and Cloverfield 2? Or do we just have to throw all four into the same bag and make no differentiation? My bottom line is, there is no Cloverfield franchise simply because they have repeatedly clarified that a sequel to Cloverfield has yet to happen. --uKER (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

To answer the first question: Nope, because we're WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

"Misinformed crowd-given denomination" is essentially the heart of WP:COMMONNAME: What the subject is more known as is what the article should be named (in most cases, and this is one of them.) The name "Cloververse" is a name that its creator may have named this franchise, but it's essentially an original thought of his (at this point) and not a name that would be recognizable to readers, so the name would cause a WP:SURPRISE. However, it is definitely helpful to have the name "Cloververse" referenced in the lead of the article to explain how it is an alternative name, as the article already currently does. Steel1943 (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, the information stated about 10 Cloverfield Lane validates this article's title not being "Cloverfield (series)" and validates it being "Cloverfield (franchise)" since it's part of the franchise, but the franchise contains different series. Also, we may have to visit looking into moving Cloverfield to Cloverfield (film) and Cloverfield (franchise) to Cloverfield say some point in the future, especially if the franchise continues to produce additional encyclopedic subjects (such as more films or even notable novels or other related subjects.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose move. I don't see "Cloververse" as the common name here.  ONR  (talk)  00:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Given two equally accurate terms, granted, you choose the most common one. In this case, nobody related to the film's production has ever said there's a "Cloverfield franchise", even explicitly clarifying that 10CL is NOT a sequel. The Cloverfield franchise will come to be when an actual sequel to Cloverfield sees the light of day. --uKER (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per both above. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Most sites and news stories refer to it as "Cloverfield" so we should also per WP:Common Name. --Deathawk (talk) 06:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cloverfield ARGs

The article doesn't cover the Alternate Reality Games that were created along with the movies. Before the release of the first movie, an ARG was created by Paramount that explained the origins of the monster. 10 Cloverfield Lane also had an ARG that linked that movie with the first one. I think a section covering the lore found exclusively in these ARGs would be beneficial to the article. Biglulu (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree as all things produced by Paramount regarding Cloverfield is canon to the franchise.--206.81.136.61 (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Broken Cast section

Earlier today the section was like this. I reformatted the info in that table, effectively removing the table, in an edit whose summary read "Absolutely pointless to have that stepped table if none of the people were in more than one of the films." One editor insists in restoring that table, doing even a broken restore that produces a broken version of the table, as seen here. Given that he's providing no justification for his reverts, I'm reverting him for the second time and notifying him about this discussion, hoping to avoid an edit war. --uKER (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the cast table is excessive, when the cast for Coverfield 4 doesn't have character names yet. However, there is a recurring actress character in both 10 Cloverield Lane and The Cloverfield Paradox. Did anyone else catch that?--206.81.136.61 (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Announcements mess

Currently, the Cloverfield Paradox section mentions announcements being made of the sequel being referred to as an IMAX move (which it will never be, being a Netflix production), and its date being pushed to April 20, which doesn't add up either. My thought is that this could be due to the unusual situation that was recently revealed, in which these people had two sequels simultaneously being baked up, and those two are actually related to Overlord. I was thinking of temptatively moving those two bits of info to the Overlord section. What do you people think? --uKER (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the solution is to state that originally it was intended to be an IMAX film, until the studio states otherwise. You are right in saying that the section is misleading currently though.--206.81.136.61 (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The characters article has little reliable references and is mostly plot and fancruft summaries. 74.89.41.43 (talk)

Cloverfield connection

Should there a page to show how there connection to there films i mean i would like to see other people thoughts on this franchise Underdog0123 (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Potential films

I think the "Potential films" section should be removed, and/or migrated to another page, such as Bad Robot, or J.J. Abrams. Outside of their connection to J.J. Abrams, and the company, there's no evidence to indicate that they have anything to do with Cloverfield. Rickraptor707 (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. rowley (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

"Cloverfield (fan franchise)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cloverfield (fan franchise) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 31#Cloverfield (fan franchise) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. uKER (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)