Talk:The Monster of Piedras Blancas

	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
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Removal of "needs infobox" tag

This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB. Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 17:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Piedras Blancas?

Given the context and the Anglo-American cast and the names of the characters, isn't the Piedras Blancas from the title Piedras Blancas Light Station? Shouldn't the article be corrected for having that link? It's pretty obvious that it isn't the Asturian, Spanish, Piedras Blancas nor any of the Latin American ones. 188.37.211.155 (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is clear from the film that its in Californian. I will fix the link.Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Release info and Expansion

This article is missing information on the film's release (both theatrical and home media) this is very important and needs to be added to the article. There is also some information in the production section that is unsourced and needs to be given proper citations. The reception section should also be expanded much more than it currently is with more reviews from notable critics added to it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fine, Paleface Jack. However, I would appreciate if you discuss changes here before reverting all of my fixes and corrections at once. I will summarize a few, since there's no room in the Undo box.

1. References (such as those for the producer and the budget) belong in the article, not in the infobox, per Wikipedia preference. The references were not deleted; they were moved to the proper place.

2. The monster in "Creature from the Black Lagoon" is officially called the Gill-man and should be linked as such: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gill-man

3. When you mention people's names in a Wiki article, you Wiki link them (if they have an article) and use their full name on first reference. When they are mentioned again after that, you do not Wiki link and you only use their surname.

4. The article was missing proper links for a number of names and topics, such as William Castle , Jack Arnold, Ricou Browning, San Simeon, Lompoc etc., all of which you removed when you undid my edits.

5. I have worked as a writer and editor for decades and have never heard the phrase "a patch on" used in the context of a takeoff or imitation. In any case, Wikipedia must reflect common usage and must be easily understood, so obscure phrases should be changed to common ones. "A patch on" is not clear writing.

6. I had fixed several punctuation and spelling errors, which you also incorrectly reverted.

Thanks for your assistance. Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paleface Jack: You keep reverting to an older version with numerous errors in it, including style, punctuation, spelling and linking problems. I have detailed all the errors above. Instead of reverting all of my corrections at once, please address any issues you have with them here, so we can remain polite and not get into an edit war. If you dispute any of my changes above, please let's discuss productively instead of just saying "reverted edit to better worded version (stop reverting the edit without giving a good reason for it", especially when I have provided detailed explanations ("a good reason") for the corrections I made. Thank you. Greg Fasolino (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I change is the improper link for Piedras Blancas which is the only reason I reverted edits.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well then why not just fix that one issue instead of reverting a huge batch of edits that took me a long time to do? I have no problem with the link you're talking about. Just the other material. So we are all good? Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did more than once and every time it is reverted.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canceled Sequel

There is no mention in the article that Irvin Berwick's son Wayne Berwick did try to make a sequel to the film after his father's death, it was canceled when he couldn't get the rights to the film because his father has sold the film's rights to a different company. It is mentioned in the Book Nightmare USA and possibly in some other sources as well.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]