Talk:Jurassic Fight Club

Untitled

Um...The end of the last episode ("Bloodiest Battle") said that "Deep Sea Killers" would be next, not "Ice Aged Monsters" as said in the article. Is this accurate?

No idea, but my god...the inaccuracies in this show are astounding. A Nanotyrannus standing up to a tyrannosaur? Would a fox stand up to a black bear?

Deinonychus, unfeathered and stalking like cavemen in the night, whilst losing comerades in slow speed fights?

Since when was Ceratosaurus so feeble? It's not as strongly constructed as Allosaurus, but I've personally seen part of the new 7 1/2 meter C. dentisulcatus skeleton and that animal was certainly no slightly built lightweight.

I'm afraid it's a lot more concerned with drama than facts, but hey, it IS TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.173.46 (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There should be a section on the logical fallacies demonstrated by the program. Dromaeosaurus taking on an Edmontosaur--as if a pack of wolves would even dream of going up against a fully grown elephant? And supposedly the fact that not all the bones are crushed shows that the tyrannosaur didn't kill it... what kind of animal needs to pulverize its prey's entire body in order to kill it? And "we now know they communicated using hand motions"? WTF?? Once again, common sense goes out the window in the face of mindless entertainment. 75.211.160.25 (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like going off topic here, but I'd sure like to see this kind of factual criticism for Monsters Resurrected. 70.80.215.121 (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Allosaurus' bite

It may be just me, but I believe I have read somewhere (maybe even on Wikipedia here), that Allosaurus, unlike the T-Rex and other big carnivores did not have teeth and jaws designed to bite through bone, contary to the show's evidence. Can someone tell me is that true or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.28 (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Allosaurus' bite was designed to scoop and not so much to crush. It had relatively small teeth for its size but a lot of them, and its bite power was very strong compared to more primitive theropods (e.g. Ceratosaurus). Ceratosaurus actually had much larger teeth, but fewer of them- it was designed to crush bone and sever arteries, not remove large chunks of flesh. Tyrannosaurs followed the Ceratosaur design, but with more conical and abundant teeth and a stronger bite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.240.74 (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Brygmophyseter

Isn't the Brygmophyseter innacurate as well? It was a kind of sperm whale, yet in the show it does not possess the box-shaped nose characteristic of all sperm whales. 76.102.94.69 (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was more of an ancestor of the modern sperm whales, so naturally it may not have had all of the modern animal's characteristics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.104.13 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

True, the differences from the modern sperm whale are that it has a dorsal fin and teeth on its upper jaw. But the Brygmophyseter seen in the show seems to lack the large, box-shaped nose characteristic of sperm whales, they must have this in order to have spermaceti. 76.102.94.69 (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the Kogia, the pygmy sperm whale relatives of the modern cachalot whale, also lack that box-shaped nose: maybe Brugmophyseter just hadn't evolved it yet... or maybe it wasn't the direct ancestor of the sperm whale after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.104.13 (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Australia

The started up in September in Australia on Fox 8, not sure where to add it though. 60.224.19.194 (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Show seasons

I believe that on the forum of the show's site it was said that there won't be a season 2. Should we perhaps kill-off the "Season 1" subheading on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.104.13 (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no because 1) you never know with producers and 2) I think it looks better like that! Weaselpie (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracy stuff

This series has far too many to list, but I don't know whether or not to add a dozen more....leaning toward not doing it.

On a related note, someone edited inaccuracies with some babble about Majungasaurus being reviewed as a possible Allosaur (Allosaurus maximus, i.e. Saurophaganax, a theropod very unrelated to Majungasaurus) and dismissed in a basal tetanurae review (Majun was a ceratosaur...)

Oddly enough, the page for Saurophaganax has virtually the same text on it, leading me to believe someone somehow mixed up Saurophaganax and Majungasaurus. I say all this in case the person who did it sees their text removed and wants to know why. Forescore68 (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Has the inaccuracy about Allosaurus being the largest Jurassic carnivorous dinosaur been reverted, for by my standards they are just "lumpers" in paleontology, I'm the same way: Epanterias and Saurophaganax are just big Allosaurus, Gorgosaurus is Albertosaurus libratus, Tarbo is actually Tyrannosaurus bataar and Mapusaurus is nothing but Giganotosaurus rosae. Also I think that there is another inaccuracy: that Dromaeosaurus was shown living with T. rex, I could see Albertosaurus or Daspletosaurus as in that episode, Raptor vs. T. rex but Dromaeosaurus lived nearly ten million years before Tyrannosaurus rex. Perhaps they went by Greg Paul's classification, and it would be a Daspletosaur (although it would not make sense why the deinonych wasn't called Velociraptor)? DeinonychusDinosaur999 (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I added that before I even read your comment! 70.80.215.121 (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A lumper in paleontology, huh? It's funny cause I'm the exact opposite. I'm convinced that every dinosaur with an article on Wikipedia existed. I guess you're the Greg Paul type and I'm the Bob Bakker type.

File:Jurassic Fight Club Nano-T.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Jurassic Fight Club Nano-T.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Documentary

I'm sorry, but this series has far too many inaccuracies to be listed as a documentary. If you want to list this as a documentary you might as well list Jurassic Park as a documentary as well because as far as I'm concerned the show has just as many incorrect portrayals. I would suggest changing the genre to Drama or even Fantasy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Cancelation

There is a rather empty cancellation section. Should it still be there if it has nothing to say? If someone has some info they can add it again. LOTG (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What are two other dinosaur documentaries doing here???

Something very weird happened on this page a few days ago. There were two other episodes on the episode list called "Arctic Mayhem" and "Cannibal Lizard". "Arctic Mayhem" appears to have been based on the documentary "March of the Dinosaurs" while "Cannibal Lizard" appears to have been based on the episode from the Dinosaur Planet TV series called Pod's Travels, as they have animals from their latter episodes or documentaries. When I returned to Wikipedia the next day, these episodes had disappeared! What ever happened? Perhaps there is a guy posting false information that you should look out for? --Ashwinsaurus (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed removal of Inaccuracies section and other content

The section in question is entirely unsourced and has ridiculous amounts of original research. It also violates WP:NPOV by painting a negative perception of the show's scientific accuracy (which, if true, should be confirmed in reliable sources instead). I think the section should be removed in its entirety, as it shows no signs of improving. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 20:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been following this article but I see that the entire thing is completely unsourced. Is there any reason why this section is being singled out as a problem when it looks like the whole article is rife with the issues you mentioned? In any case, it might be worthwhile to comb the internet for reviews of the show, which I would hazard a guess certainly do mention plenty of the inaccuracies (probably not all of them, which suggests the section should be chopped down substantially) and some of which will undoubtedly laud the show. A quick google returns a few: Laelaps review NY Daily News review The Awl review -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Upon second thought, you're probably right about the entire article needing serious cleanup. I think that there are other parts which must be removed or addressed otherwise as well. I am therefore adding the following sections to the proposal for removal or major reworking:

• Featured animals - I suppose we could leave it, but I really see no purpose in it seeing as though all those animals should be mentioned in the episode summaries.
• Episodes - all "Outcomes" must be seriously trimmed down for OR and other policy issues as well as just being too long in the first place.
• Trivia - delete for same reasons as "Inaccuracies."
• George Blasing - I'm not sure that he's worthy of mention, seeing as though his section is unsourced. Some sources might be found on the old George Blasing page, though.
• Cancellation - I can't see any use in having it if it doesn't have any content. Delete for now, possibly restore later if information can be added.
• "Turf Wars" - Same old WP:V and WP:OR issues. Judging by the nature of the topic, I seriously doubt that there are any reliable sources covering it.

And if we do keep some of these sections based on information from reviews, they must be substantially trimmed down, like you said. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 22:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think George Blasing is worth mentioning as the host, but just in the lead (which needs to be written), I don't see that he needs his own section at all. The Laelaps link above mentions him, and I'm sure a few other sources can be found too. Here are some more reviews I came across where some information can be taken from: NY Times NY Post PopWatch DVD Verdict (includes brief episode summaries) Monsters & Critics DVD Talk (includes episode summaries) Coming Soon (includes a "Starring" animals list) Here's a brief review I found on n4g.com about Turf Wars so maybe that is worth keeping, trimmed (no idea how reliable that one is, though). There is one piece of trivia/inaccuracy on IMDB and another "goof" on IMDB. A little more trivia/inaccuracies on ShareTV. That's about all I can find for now, but I only searched the first few pages of google results. Hope that helps! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Remove all unsourced criticism. These "Inaccuracies" sections sprout up on every article about dinosaur documentaries, mostly contributed by IP editors who don't cite any sources. The inaccuracies are quite likely correct, but if they don't quote an authority saying the show is wrong, they're WP:OR and WP:SYN. I just delete them on sight. This doesn't require discussion. Good luck cleaning up the article otherwise; I'm afraid I can't be motivated to take an interest in this bastard lovechild of reality TV and palaeontology. I might try to reformat the episode table to something more sensible though. Barsoomian (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Is there a reason why the episode section is so detailed? TV Guide isn't even this detailed. Episode summaries should be just that - summaries. Two or three sentences should suffice. I suggest cutting down that section quite a bit. The section about the host could also be reworded. The section almost sounds like a fansite encouraging readers to go visit the guy's site. The cancellation section also sounds weird. Rumors shouldn't be mentioned in an encyclopedia. I would jump in and prune this but since I know very little about dinosaurs and what is worth saving, I'll hold off. Pinkadelica^♣ 21:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Victories

Shouldn't the article list the victors of the fights in each episode, for example:

• River of Death: Albertosaurus beats Pachyrhinosaurus.
• Ice Age Monsters: Arctodus beats Panthera atrox.
• Deep Sea Killers: Megalodon beats Brygmophyseter.
• Gang Killers: Deinonychus beats Tenontosaurus.
• Raptors vs. T-rex: T-rex and Dromaeosaurus beat Edmontosaurus.
• T-rex Hunter: T-rex beats Nanotyrannus.
• Bloodiest Battle: Ceratosaurus beats Allosaurus, Stegosaurus, and Camarasaurus.
• Raptor's Last Stand: Both Gastonia and Utahraptor die. 24.36.130.109 (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2012‎

Each episode is already described in detail, including the victor. Not really enough room to do it in the header of each episode if that's what you mean. Barsoomian (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone changed the plot and victories of some episodes. For example, in Cannibal Dinosaur, The male Majungasaurus was labeled the winner when it was the female that won. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AA25:ED49:98BE:41EB:926:5855 (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jurassic Fight Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091008212907/http://www.history.com/content/jurassic-fight-club to http://www.history.com/content/jurassic-fight-club

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jurassic Fight Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114053334/http://www.dinosaurgeorge.com/About_Dinosaur_George.html to http://www.dinosaurgeorge.com/About_Dinosaur_George.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)