Talk:Monster (disambiguation)

Flying Spaghetti Monster

He's a monster too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.64.248 (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split

I removed the split-tag since no one's commented on it at all since it was added September, 2006. I personally don't think this article should be split since there are only two cases of "monstrosity" on the list, not enough for their own disambiguation page. If someone disagrees they can add the tag back. Tocharianne 03:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Energy Drink

Please both of you stop edit warring or I will report both of you. Each of you should consider this your 3RR warning. Now then, why is "Monster" brand energy drink not referred to as "Monster"? "Red Bull" energy drink is called "Red Bull." I see no rationale for removing this item. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A 3RR warning for one revert? --Sturm 22:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have three [1] [2] [3]. They aren't within 24 hours but you are clearly engaged in edit-warring, and I thought I'd get the 3RR warning out there so that maybe you'd stop. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the worst edit war in history. Well, to turn to your original question, Red Bull Energy Drink is actively marketed as "Red Bull"; it's incredibly easy to verify in reliable sources that this is the common name for the drink (indeed, the Wikipedia article is actually Red Bull). Is it possible to do the same for Monster Energy? It's just that I'm acutely aware of the tendency for disambiguation pages to become bloated with unnecessary additions which don't really require disambiguation, making it more of a chore to find the stuff which does. --Sturm 22:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the first line of Monster energy drink. It is quite often referred to as "Monster." Monster is a common word - it has a large disambiguation page. Length is not a factor - the amount of "bloating" that may occur is not relevant to this particular question: Is this drink commonly or even predominately referred to as simply "Monster"? Yes, it is. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen the first line of the article, and seen no reliable source to back it up (as yet). The relevant question is this: Are people who are looking for "Monster Energy" going to type in simply "Monster"? That's the purpose of a disambiguation page: to get people from what they type to where they want to go. --Sturm 08:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, you know what, that's an issue to take up at the article. DAB pages don't cite sources, and they don't need sources. You can't ask "the relevant question" and then refuse to hear the answer: it's commonly (if not primarily) referred to as "Monster." This is made clear on the article, regardless of whether or not there are sources (WP:V doesn't demand a source for everything). --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for sources to be cited on Monster (disambiguation). I'm asking for someone to point me towards a source that justifies the idea that someone who types "Monster" needs to be disambiguated in the direction of Monster Energy. This is not an unreasonable request. --Sturm 12:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you keep asking this question unless you think you know better. Either that, or you haven't been listening to the answer. This brand is commonly, if not predominantly, referred to as simply "Monster." It says so right in its article. WP:V does not require every verifiable or commonly understood thing to be substantiated with a source ready at hand. I don't know what kind of source you expect, to substantiate this, but let's start with: http://www.google.com/search?q=monster. Fourth hit on Google for the search term monster. Sounds like that's what people are calling it to me. More importantly, our article lists "Monster" as something it is commonly called - we construct disambiguations primarily based on what articles say their subject is called. Any article that starts off Blah, also referred to as Monster should be disambiguated here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very dubious interpretation of the Google results. Do you have something akin to an article which refers to the brand simply as "Monster" in the title? Just the one would be enough for me. --Sturm 13:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are questioning whether or not a search term "Monster" giving particular Google results, coupled with what our article already says about this item, can be construed as to what kinds of search terms & results our users are expecting? I'm glad one source would be enough for you, and if I felt like doing the digging I would, but none is enough, since Monster Energy already has "monster" as an alternate title / search term. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But since I know you won't let it rest, news results referring to it as "Monster":

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Took me a minute to find them on news.google. None of those have Monster in the title, but I found very few with "Monster Energy" in the title either, and placement in the title seems highly arbitrary/irrelevant. Next time you want to protest something so petty, when it's already accepted by consensus in the article itself as the name of the thing (meaning it should automatically be here at the DAB), try looking it up yourself instead of demanding that I do so - that's what WP:V is all about. --Cheeser1 (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look myself? Oh, my dear fellow, I was too curious to see whether another infrequent editor would wake from their slumber purely to add "Monster Energy" to the page to actually Google myself. However, I'm willing to accept the entry now – no further arguments from me.

(For the record, though, a search on "Bobble" brings up "Bubble Bobble"; the former is not a common shorthand for the latter; it's specifically what I had in mind when I stated your interpretation of the results was "dubious".) --Sturm 14:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A random question

Of the people who visit http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/monster, how many really are meaning to look up monster.com? 71.166.169.68 (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can't know for sure, but probably not many. According to this website, in June 2010 (the most recent month with full statistics), 49,303 people viewed Monster and 2,015 people viewed Monster.com. Propaniac (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrical framework

I'd heard that song writers create a monster: a word salad framework containing the verbal stress pattern of a new song, before substituting meaningful words into it. I'm trying to research it, and I'd like to write an article [[Monster lyrical framework) Is anyone else familiar with it? samwaltz (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]