Talk:Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park

	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 American cinema task force.

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title

In the recent AFD, there appeared to be three editors (not including myself) in favor of the name "Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park", and there also appeared to be two editors in favor of "Prehistoric and fictional creatures in Jurassic Park". One of those two editors was also in favor of the "Dinosaurs" name, and so am I (making a total of four in support), so that's the name I chose. It seemed like the most likely title that readers would search for. However, I realize there is some opposition about this, given that a few animals on here are not actually dinosaurs (even though they are commonly mistaken as such). I'm open to discussing the title further, if necessary. Although "Prehistoric and fictional creatures in Jurassic Park" is a bit long, it would cover all the animals that are here, so I would not be against it if there is consensus. I would be fine with a formal move discussion if others think it is necessary. AJFU (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stormare

It's unclear why we would force readers to go to a different page to figure out who Peter Stormare is. I'm not sure what the issue is with including the actor's full name here. AJFU (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know why we listed that actor here considering we often list it under the character page and The Lost World Jurassic Park. There should've been one of the links to that section placed on that name. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that you didn't read the full version: "Later in the film, they kill the character Dieter Stark, who is played by Peter Stormare. For Stark's death scene, Stormare had to wear a jacket with numerous rubber Compies attached." The actor's name is relevant information. Otherwise, the reader is left to wonder who this Stormare person is. Why wouldn't we give him a proper introduction? AJFU (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrids

In light of a recent edit, I looked at the Jurassic World Evolution page on this website and it did not list the names of the featured dinosaurs there. A section was started here to list the ones that appeared in the video games and Lego Jurassic World: The Indominus Effect (which is currently an AFD) as we have to put that information somewhere. I did list the featured dinosaurs and hybrids on one of the video game pages once, but somebody removed it. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that we have to put that information somewhere. There's basically no coverage of these hybrid animals in reliable sources. I think only the hardcore fans really know or care about this stuff. Material like this belongs on a fan website, such as this or this. I'm not convinced that readers gain much from these repetitive descriptions about how "[dinosaur name] is a hybrid of [this and that]". This fails to demonstrate any kind of importance as to why it would be listed here. It just reads like random trivia, and there are no sources that can be used to write more about these animals, because there's basically nothing more to write about.

As seen here, Ankylodocus and Spinoraptor do get brief mentions at the Evolution page, which is all that is needed given their sparse coverage in sources.

"I did list the featured dinosaurs and hybrids on one of the video game pages once, but somebody removed it." I assume you mean this, which was reverted for good reason, as was this. AJFU (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Include television series and short film dinosaurs?

Look Jurassic World: Camp Cretaceous is canon for the most part and so is the short film Battle at Big Rock. Should the dinosaurs from those be included in the list as well as the future planned live-action series? 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle at Big Rock is briefly mentioned in several sections already. I expect that the dinosaurs in the live-action series will get significant coverage in reliable sources and will be added to the page eventually. To my knowledge, there isn't any noteworthy information available for the Camp Cretaceous dinosaurs, regarding their development and animation. That's why it's absent here. AJFU (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor is now insisting on adding the Camp Cretaceous dinosaurs, even though they are not discussed in any reliable sources. Their reasoning is that the dinosaurs appear in the show itself and therefore do not need a source. However, the show only supports that these animals appear in it. Outside of the show, there is no in-depth coverage of these particular animals and how they were created. Unlike the films' dinosaurs, info on the Camp Cretaceous animals appears to be virtually non-existent. The show itself is notable, but the dinosaurs in it are not. Therefore, I don't see why they should be here.

We should stick to what reliable sources say. The main focus should be on real-world information, not mere appearances. The idea is to prevent this article from deteriorating into a fan page like the last one. However, by allowing primary sources, that would open up the door to include non-notable dinosaur appearances in other media like the Lego series and the video games. This page isn't meant to be an exhaustive listing of every animal that ever appeared in the franchise.

This article is largely focused on live-action appearances, because that's the only thing that really gets any attention in reliable sources. This page is big already, and it will only get bigger when Dominion comes out. If the live-action TV series does move forward, it may be better to keep its dinosaur information solely at the show's article and out of this one entirely. Perhaps this page should be renamed as Dinosaurs in the Jurassic Park film series, to eliminate confusion about why certain dinosaurs are missing.

Furthermore, Atrociraptor should not be here until there is actual confirmation (not leaks) that it will be in Dominion. If it's in the film, it will eventually be added here. There is no rush. As for Geosternbergia, there are no reliable sources to support the sentence added by the IP. Apparently the animal makes minor appearances in The Lost World, but this is hard-to-spot trivia that would only be known among die-hard fans. AJFU (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022

The article has gotten 175,000 page views since its creation 16 months ago. By my count, only eight people have made attempts to add the Camp Cretaceous dinosaurs since then. In other words, most readers don't seem to notice (or mind) the absence of Camp Cretaceous here, judging by the high number of page views and low number of editors trying to add those dinosaurs.

I have yet to find any in-depth coverage of these animals. It's mostly sales listings for toys based on the show, or fan sites. There doesn't seem to be anything worth writing about. And if there is, it may be better off at the main Camp Cretaceous article, as this one is already quite large. AJFU (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2024

With Jurassic World: Chaos Theory now also gracing Netflix, I suspect the page may not cover information from that series either. When you think about it, both of these animated works are like the animated Star Wars works, they do feature major players from live-action, appearing alongside newer characters. But since the franchise revolves around dinosaurs with very few returning humans, and the animated works have yet to openly be acknowledged (aside from explaining how Lewis Dodgson got that DNA canister) by having major characters appear later in live-action, as recent Star Wars works would later do, I can see why not covering stuff exclusive to those works may be the wiser decision. Do you think a "List of Camp Cretaceous and Chaos Theory characters" page can split the difference and give them all a place to go to?

Another thing to wonder about, what happens if the animated work reveals something about a dinosaur that has yet to appear in the movies? I am asking because, noticing the earlier talk about Atrociraptor, Chaos Theory reveals that these dinosaurs are capable of camouflaging themselves, a trait not shown in Dominion. In addition, there is promotional material for Dominion in which the four Atrociraptor are named "Red", "Ghost", "Panthera", and "Tiger" (the latter three appearing in Chaos Theory), styling them as counterparts of Owen's Velociraptor and giving them additional backstory not stated in the film. I can understand if including animated stuff is not in the scope of the article, but should the names from this promotional material be sourced and used on this article? User:6f5e4d (talk) 0:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the shows, so I don't know if a separate character list is needed. If there is significant real-world info about the characters, then the answer may be yes. You might wanna ask at Talk:Jurassic World Camp Cretaceous.

I can't find any sources that talk about the camouflage ability, so that doesn't seem noteworthy to mention here. I also can't find anything to indicate significance of the names or a backstory. AJFU (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pteranodon

Pteranodon was in the Dominion prologue, but I am not sure how to add an "appearance" section in the table for it. -User:1morey January 2, 2022 10:45 AM (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:984:8100:23D0:7C5E:F39F:84D2:283F (talk)

Dimetrodon

It may be premature to talk about it. But Dimetrodon has been shown in official merchandise via sticker books for JW:D alongside other animals already confirmed in the film. Is that good enough source or is not enough to allow its addition to this article? 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait until there's a better source (for example, something like this, which goes into some detail about the animal). AJFU (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to be sure that’s all. 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Jurassic World Indominus Rex.webp

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Table of appearances

Is there another word/icon we can use to denote appearances in the § Table of appearances? Repeating "Appearance" 50 times doesn't look good in my opinion. How about {{Yes}}, or {{ya}}, etc.? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think {{ya}} would look fine. AJFU (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate Main Pages for Blue

Should Blue the Velociraptor have her own page? given the fact that Rexy dose have one and that she is another important dinosaur in the Jurassic Park film series. An draft was already made: Draft:Blue (Jurassic World) 114.75.148.198 (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be far better to have a fully comprehensive page (Velociraptor (Jurassic Park)) that covers the raptors in each film, as opposed to just Blue, who is probably not noteworthy enough to warrant a separate article. AJFU (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Blue is definitely noteworthy for an article on her own, considering that she is the primary dinosaur in the franchise. See Draft:Blue (Jurassic World). I think that while it might be smart to have an article on the raptors in general, I don't think that it should be either Blue or the raptors. Blue is notable, and it remains to be seen if the species as a whole is as well. Di (they-them) (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blue is notable, and it remains to be seen if the species as a whole is as well. There is plenty of information about the raptors in general, as seen here.

Draft:Blue (Jurassic World) seems okay, although I still believe she can be covered adequately in a single article about the raptors. More real-world info (particularly for the reception section) would make a stronger case for keeping Blue as a separate page. AJFU (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I think a plural title would work better. There isn't just one velociraptor in the franchise. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about called the fully comprehensive page "Velociraptors in Jurassic Park", because Velociraptor (Jurassic Park) doesn't sound right in my books. 114.75.148.198 (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I can make that page for you. 114.75.148.198 (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Draft:Velociraptors in Jurassic Park 114.75.148.198 (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I wouldn't want to work on that unless there's a consensus to split the section into a new article. AJFU (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - we're running into WP:fancruft with all these spin offs. FunkMonk (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having a draft created doesn't automatically mean it will be sent to the mainspace one day. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that making pages for notable characters is fancruft. If Rexy can have a page, I don't see why the raptors, which are arguably far more notable and relevant to the plot of the franchise, can't. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rexy left a mark on popular culture and is an icon of the franchise. Do we have extensive MOS:REALWORLD coverage of the raptors? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for Blue at least, which can be seen in Draft:Blue (Jurassic World). She is the main dinosaur in the franchise, and is far more important than Rexy. Di (they-them) (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what is already in that section, I think there is enough real-world coverage. I think a split also makes sense from a size perspective. The section has over 60 sources and nearly a dozen paragraphs. It's much larger than any other section in this article. AJFU (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the draft needs to first be updated to include everything in that section before we can conclude whether a split is the right step. To retain page history, I would suggest getting rid of Draft:Velociraptors in Jurassic Park and just turning Draft:Blue (Jurassic World) into the new article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can start working on the draft next week, assuming there are no objections to your proposal about reworking the Blue draft. AJFU (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished working on Draft:Blue (Jurassic World). I have not yet renamed the draft or had the other one deleted, in case the discussion here concludes that Blue should still have a separate page. AJFU (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the draft is good enough to publish. I also think that the previous draft, where it was just about Blue, is also good to publish. When should they be done? Di (they-them) (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can get to this next week when I have a little more time. Assuming there are no objections about having two articles (I'm now neutral on this), I can trim the Blue draft back down to how it was before, while keeping the new details I added about her. I would then expand Draft:Velociraptors in Jurassic Park page, and then both can be published as separate articles. AJFU (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, Blue is not notable for her own article. Keep the raptors together. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how Blue is not notable, the draft has 37 sources. That definitely passes GNG in my eyes. She isn't some minor character, she's the main dinosaur in the entire franchise. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@InfiniteNexus: Did you have any thoughts regarding the above response? Are you still opposed to a Blue page? I'm checking to see what the general consensus is on how to proceed. AJFU (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see strong consensus here, so I won't move it myself. I suggest submitting the draft to AfC. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if newcomers to this discussion might find it confusing. We have two different proposals here, one of which involved a Blue draft that was converted into a raptors draft that included Blue, only to be changed back, with the raptors now covered at their own draft (but now without much of the Blue info since she has her own draft).

In case there's any confusion, here's a simple overview of the two proposals:

Create a single article (seen here) that covers all of the raptors, including Blue
Create separate articles for Blue and the raptors, seen here and here.

AJFU (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: I was curious if you had any new thoughts regarding the proposals above. AJFU (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that any articles on dinosaurs in Jurassic Park beyond this one is bordering on fancruft, and articles on individual dinosaurs in the franchise is well beyond that line. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is getting out of hand, to quote a famous Neimoidian. Oh wait, they don't even have their own article either... This is the sort of stuff that should be kept at a dedicated Jurassic Park Wiki. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal #1 has nearly 100 sources and consists mostly of real-world info from reliable sources. In my opinion, there's no comparison with Neimoidian, which has a single (primary) source and "citation needed" tags dating to 2007. Can you or SilverTiger12 please elaborate on how the raptor draft comes across as fancruft? I could understand the Blue draft being viewed as such, but I thought the raptor draft looked fine. AJFU (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Di (they-them): do you still feel strongly about having a separate Blue page? Would you be open to supporting the combined article instead (the one seen here)? I'm thinking again that that would be best, after looking more thoroughly at the Blue draft with a fresh perspective. Blue's draft duplicates info already covered in the raptor draft, including production details and some of the critical reception. Part of the production section focuses on the Jurassic World raptors as a group, rather than on Blue specifically (who has basically two paragraphs), while the last paragraph is more about Beta. All fine (and easy) to cover in a page about the raptors in general, but veering somewhat off topic in an article about Blue. Movie reviews for the Jurassic World trilogy don't really mention Blue, except for when they recap the plot lines. Actual critical reception of her is scarce in the reviews, suggesting limited interest among general sources. Blue is discussed extensively, but in lower-quality fan-type sources like CBR and ScreenRant. There are high-quality sources ([1], [2], [3]), but those are fewer in numbers. Other sources in the draft seem not to focus on her specifically. AJFU (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AJFU: I personally would want Blue to have her own article due to her coverage as an individual character, but if you feel that a single page is best, I won't contradict that. Do what you think is best. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone has submitted the draft to AfC, we'll see what happens. Should the draft be moved to the mainspace, anyone is of course free to nominate it at AfD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Päiviö Selänne: Thanks for working on the Blue draft, although I have some comments:

The infobox says Blue is based on Crichton's novel, but this isn't mentioned anywhere else in the draft.
The merchandising info in the lead section is supported only by product listings, and info about Blue's height and weight seems like in-universe trivia.
The reception section is a downgrade from what was there before. Why was this trimmed?
Blue appears during the VelociCoaster ride, and this was supported by sources. Was this removed by accident?
We don't need a list of mere appearances. The previous draft had these fleshed out beyond bullet points. On the other hand, the biography section in the current draft is way overboard with in-universe info and unnecessary details. I think the previous draft struck a fine balance.

Although your changes added additional sources and a bit more info, I still think Blue can be covered just fine in a Velociraptor article (which would look like this). I suppose we'll wait and see what happens at AfC. AJFU (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title issues

For whatever reason, this page was moved from its more inclusive title (list of cloned/prehistoric animals or similar), though a good bunch of the prehistoric animals in the films aren't even dinosaurs. The introduction doesn't even address this, and the article is therefore misleading as it stands. Either the title is changed, or there is a clear disclaimer early in the intro. Other errors noticed at a glance include "Other species, including Brachiosaurus and Spinosaurus", neither are species, but genera. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See this section regarding the title. There are 39 animals in the table of appearances, and only 6 of them are non-dinosaurs. It's primarily a dinosaur page. The lead section reads: The series has also featured other creatures such as Mosasaurus and members of the pterosaur group, both commonly misidentified by the public as dinosaurs. "Species" is also used several other times in the article, but I don't know how accurate that is, so feel free to make any corrections. AJFU (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Velociraptor draft

The Blue draft has been rejected with a comment stating to wait until the above discussion closes, so we're back where we left off. I think my proposal for a Velociraptor page kinda got lost in the above discussion, so I've started this separate section. Aside from myself, there appear to be two others ([4], [5]) who are fine with the proposal.

@SilverTiger12: you had previously said My opinion is that any articles on dinosaurs in Jurassic Park beyond this one is bordering on fancruft. Were you referring specifically to the draft that I'm proposing? Do you oppose it? @FunkMonk: could you please provide clarity on how the draft is fancruft? Do either of you have suggestions on how to improve it? AJFU (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general encyclopaedia, not a Jurassic Park fanwiki. I simply don't see any need for such articles, when they can be adequately covered in this article. Surely, we don't need more than a paragraph about any of these "characters", if they can even be called that. FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has been ample and sustained coverage about the raptors' paleontological accuracy ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]) and about the efforts to create them for the screen ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]), suggesting that there is interest beyond just fans. I mostly agree that the franchise's dinosaurs do not require standalone articles (they're mostly covered adequately in this article). However, I believe the raptors (like Rexy) are a clear exception based on the coverage and the amount of real-world info available.

I simply don't see any need for such articles, when they can be adequately covered in this article. This article currently has 12,007 words and 74,384 bytes, putting it in between "Probably should be divided" and "Almost certainly should be divided" (WP:SIZERULE). It is disproportionately larger than any other section in the article, and having a separate article would allow for better organization. This, along with the real-world coverage, would seem to make the raptors an obvious candidate for splitting. AJFU (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Velociraptors in Jurassic Park (different from the draft that I was proposing) was submitted to AfC and has now been moved to mainspace. Since an article now exists, I think we might as well just copy over the details from the draft I proposed, thereby adding info about Blue (who doesn't seem to have enough notability and support for a separate article). AJFU (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and copied the missing details over into the existing article. To clarify, Velociraptors in Jurassic Park was originally written in the event that Blue would also have her own article, but since that no longer seems likely, everything is now covered in one place. AJFU (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]