Jump to content

Talk:Jurassic Park/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Lost World Help

Any help on the Lost World article would be appreciated. I did some modifications to make it match Jurassic Park as much as possible, since that's an FA. I think with an expanded production section, it could be a contender for GA. ColdFusion650 13:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any of the DVDs?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
No. ColdFusion650 13:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Don Shay and Jody Duncan, who wrote the making-of book for Jurassic Park, also wrote one for the sequel, so try tracking that down. Alientraveller 13:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll check the DVDs that I have to see if they have any type of commentary or special features that would assist you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The section on the featured cast and dinosaurs seems like it shouldn't be there. It just seems superfluous and out of place. I wanted to get some more opinions on that to make sure, though. The current formatting is incredibly wasteful, with the all the gray boxes, and the setup makes no sense, with the dinosaur names appearing twice on each line. I'll put the stuff below for review. ColdFusion650 22:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Syntax

Main article: List of characters in Jurassic Park
Character Film
Jurassic Park The Lost World: Jurassic Park Jurassic Park III
Dr. Alan Grant Sam Neill   Sam Neill
Dr. Ellie Sattler Laura Dern   Laura Dern
Dr. Ian Malcolm Jeff Goldblum  
John Hammond Richard Attenborough  
Alexis "Lex" Murphy Ariana Richards  
Tim Murphy Joseph Mazzello  
Dennis Nedry Wayne Knight  
Ray Arnold Samuel L. Jackson  
Robert Muldoon Bob Peck  
Donald Gennaro Martin Ferrero  
Dr. Sarah Harding   Julianne Moore  
Roland Tembo   Pete Postlethwaite  


Main article: Biological issues in Jurassic Park
Film
Jurassic Park The Lost World: Jurassic Park Jurassic Park III
Tyrannosaurus Rex
Velociraptor
Triceratops
Parasaurolophus
Brachiosaurus
Gallimimus Ceratosaurus
Dilophosaurus Compsognathus
Pteranodon
Stegosaurus
Pachycephalosaurus Spinosaurus
Mamenchisaurus Ankylosaurus
Corythosaurus

Discussion

Well, my initial intention was to just list the main characters for each film, and link to a "List of Jurassic Park films cast members" (or whatever the actual name is) page that lists them all. The actual page is full of in-universe content, and not what a list should be. It should be reminiscent of List of Harry Potter films cast members, which is a featured list, and what I was going for with this list. I didn't do the dinosaur thing. 12:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My main problem was with the dinosaur section. As I said, it lists the names twice on each line. I'll put the cast section back, but the dinosaurs need some major reworking if they want to stay. ColdFusion650 13:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The think the issue with the dinosaurs was because it treated them as "actors" by putting them in that left-side column.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
How is it now?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It's better. It just seems like there should be a way to do it without having all of the gray area. It seems like a waste to have so much area blocked off for nothing. But this will work. ColdFusion650 13:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I compacted the table by filling the blank spots with dinosaurs that would fit. What do you think? ColdFusion650 13:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is Brachiasaurus only there twice? Was it not in the first film? I thought that was what ate from the tree at the beginning and then met Grant and the children in the tree?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was. Whoever set up the table goofed. I fixed it on the main page and here. What do you think of the compacted version? ColdFusion650 14:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should have two different dinosaurs in one field. It's kind of confusing. Maybe there shouldn't be a table at all.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not. ColdFusion650 14:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Gallimimus was in JP3, but it's listed as such on the page. Someone mind giving me a pic or telling me the scene? --98.193.61.220 (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Jurassic Park IV

I propose to merge Jurassic Park IV to this broader Jurassic Park article because while verifiable speculation exists, there is no clear sign that actual production will take place anytime soon. The project has lingered in development hell since 2002, and has not shown any attributable sign of being fast-tracked to production. It seems inappropriate to establish an individual film article for this film that is not certain to be made, and I am proposing a similar treatment here as what took place with Spider-Man 4 -- a content placement at Spider-Man film series#Future. Please state your support or opposition here to reach a consensus for the merge. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Alientraveller 16:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Nothing confirms that it will be made. Read the available, well-cited content -- there's no indication of actual production, just talk about it. Per WP:CFORK, it's on the franchise article. When there is an actual director set, a cast hired, and a production start date arranged, then it can be recreated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

JPIV Casting

Blood-Disgusting is reporting that official casting has begun on Jurassic Park IV. The information isn't verifiable, but it's got one editor attempting to recreate Jurassic Park IV as an article already. If any further efforts take place, editors should be informed of WP:NF and WP:V. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Article is written in clear, understandable language. Could use some minor syntax edits to the Lead, but this is not a sticking point.
2. Factually accurate?: Cites (26) sources, using good formatting. Do all the cites utilize WP:CIT ? If not, they should, before your next step in quality review. Also, some of the subsections are missing cites. I know that most of these are exempt, because they are merely brief bits summarizing the prior films. But there are some portions, like Jurassic Park, which contains uncited production info. As the article Jurassic Park (film) is a WP:FA, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that it was taken directly from there. But please provide cites in the article to these types of production sections.
3. Broad in coverage?: Very thorough. I especially appreciated your tasteful usage of all of the various tables.
4. Neutral point of view?: Article appears to be written in a neutral manner, yes.
5. Article stability? No problems in the edit history going back a month, but a month ago, looks like there was some trouble over what to include in the lead. As this is not an issue at this time, and there is some great civil discourse on the talk page, this is not a fail point. However, please do keep an eye on this in the future.
6. Images?: One image, of the DVD box, with a fair use rationale given. However, the rationale could be expanded a bit more on the image page. Again, not a failing point, but please address it moving forward. If you could find one or two free-use images to add to the article, perhaps of a couple of the actors, that would do nicely as well.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 09:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A-Class film article

After looking at the peer-review and A-Class criteria and solely fixing most of the problems, I believe that Jurassic Park franchise is ready for A-Class. Contact me on my talk page if you would like to address a problem. Limetolime (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Far from an A-Class article; see below.
Jim Dunning | talk 11:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Article quality diminished?

Since its listing as a Good Article in November 2007, material has been added to this article without adequate sourcing. Does this affect its standing as GA? The Development/Books and Video Games sections are missing citations for a significant amount of their material. Also, should the Dinosaurs' list be sourced? The average person would be hard-pressed to correctly identify every dinosaur depicted in the films. In the Development section there's no mention of efforts to accurately portray the creatures, so how do we even know that every animal depicted in the films has a real-life analog? I admit I haven't encountered this specific problem in fiction articles before, so I'm uncertain whether the Dinosaurs section is original research or not. It seems to me, however, given the popularity and technical breakthroughs of the films that some expert must have been interested enough in writing a treatment of the palaeontologic accuracy of the franchise. I'll do some searching.

Given that, it seems this article needs some effort to improve sourcing or it risks delisting as GA. Let's get to work.
Jim Dunning | talk 11:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Article is a complete mess. Counted three sections which dealt with which dinosaurs were in what film. Why do we need different sections telling us the same thing? What does the species of dinosaur have to do with the box office performance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.55.243 (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Still Waiting

JurassicPark 4 ?--Streona (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Behind the films - reliable source

Re. According to a new interview conducted in 2010 by Drew McWeeny with Joe Johnston on the website Behind the Films, a new script is under works with a different idea behind it. Johnston says once he finishes Captain America, he hopefully will develop Jurassic Park IV with Steven Spielberg, although it is sill uncertain.

Reference is this

I've tagged this as an uncertain source, as it does not appear to be a reliable source.  Chzz  ►  21:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the article on BehindTheFilms. It's not THE source per say, the website HitFix is. All that needs to be changed is where the source comes from, because Joe Johnston did indeed say what is said on BehindTheFilms, but he was talking to the website HitFix and this is linked on the BehindTheFilms article. Jackdelamare (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Jurassic Park: Redemtion

I added the Jurassic Park Redmtion comic. I've looked all over the internet and yes it is a true comic. Banana7070, 29 July 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC).

Topps Comics Jurassic Park #0-4

The comics were dated on a previous edit as being published in "June – August 1993, November 1993" but before my edit it was "June – September 1993, November 1993". The November date is patently that of the omnibus and as it is mentioned below I've removed it. As for the discrepancy in dates for the first publishing I would rather someone would check the comics themselves as I've tried to find the information online and I could only find an enigmatic result (scroll to the bottom). Dracontes (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Disastrous attempt?

The first sentence of the article states that "all" installations of the franchise focus on the disastrous side of Jurassic Park. Apparently they are forgetting about JPOG where you build your own park that (hopefully) does not end in disaster. Granted, most of my parks have ended that way but saying that the ENTIRE franchise focuses on a misguided attempt at recreating a lost world is lazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Jurassic Park IV Article:

I think that we have enough information to actually have an article about Jurassic Park IV, now. At the 2011 San Diego Comic-Con, Steven Spielberg even confirmed that the film was, indeed, going to be made, and that they are currently working on the script. Spielberg also said that the release date, for the film, will most likely be in 2013, (which is, by the way, the 20th anniversary of the first Jurassic Park movie!), or 2014. It has also been confirmed that Spielberg will be the producer, and Joe Johnston will most likely be the director, of the movie. Therefore, with all of this wealth of new information, I think that it is now time to actually start working on an actual article, about Jurassic Park IV. So, what do you think? Cheers! SuperHero2111 (Talk). 19:56, 9 April, 2012. (CST).

There is a good amount of detail and I would say yes, but, I can't see the page being allowed to stay up for a film that is two years away unless there was a huge amount of information. But I say, yes, for an article. Charlr6 (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree an article should be made with the information we have User: Williammccandless — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.191.176 (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Gerry Harding mentioned in TLW:JP?

When is he mentioned?--Rune Haako (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

JP1 2013

With the frist flim up to $952,396,947 For 26th worldwide till 19th worldwide And the series upto $1,939,816,755 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Add a section on additional merchandising

I believe this article should have information on some of the additional JP merchandising. Such as, in 2001 the Royal Canadian Mint created 5 collectible Jurassic Park 3 medallions. Anyone looking to improve this article please take this into consideration. John Mortimore (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The billion $ culb

Jurrasic park has now made more than $1 billon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with InGen

This is mostly plot information with a few trivial real world remarks. This doesn't seem to have any real lasting impact, so it should be covered in the main article. TTN (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: Move. To clarify, the franchise article will go to Jurassic Park; to err on the side of caution the current content there will go to Jurassic Park (disambiguation); if deletion or some other solution is felt necessary discussion can continue to that end. Cúchullain t/c 03:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


Jurassic Park (franchise) → Jurassic Park – Per this year old, unanswered discussion, there seems to be no opposition to combining the articles. Jurassic Park has nothing to add to this, so this should just replace it. TTN (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2014 (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.

Re: Jurassic Park IV

I think you can pretty much delete the Jurassic Park IV section seeing as it will never be an actual reality. It's been almost 8 years in 2010 since we've actually got legitmate information regarding actual production of it. Any reference to it on Wikipedia should be deleted. In the section, he pretty much said "it's a long shot." I can't believe all that crap that feed us. --A3RO (mailbox) 04:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As long as the information is verifiable with sources to back it up, there is no reason for it to be deleted. To quote WP:CRYSTAL "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." There is more than enough sources to cover the development of JPIV even if it never gets made. --TaerkastUA (Talk) 16:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I lost the link but its confirmed to be back in production, even perhaps creating a hole new trilogy as Joe Johnson said himself. Find a link and add it in. (This is recent, so its not at all outdated) Spinodontosaurus (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)#

In the description of the first film, the entry says it was well received by critics "although they criticized the characterization"... Characterization of what? I'd correct this but I don't know what the criticism was. In its current form, the sentence is meaningless and vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.127.184 (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Joe Johnston is honestly an idiot and has been blabbing about JP4 for almost 10 years. The JP trilogy is dead. The new film, if there will even be one, won't use the JP4 title. It's really stupid and annoying how much information contradicts each other. --A3RO (mailbox) 12:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Let the record show his back-and-forth statements, then. :) The long, sordid history of the film will be evident to all. Erik (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Joe Johnston hasn't said anything about the film over the past 9 years, he's kept quiet because he wasn't interested until now. He'll start saying stuff now if and when the film begins to take shape. Jackdelamare (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
"IF" is right. There's really nothing more left to put on a script that hasn't already been said or done, other than another apocalyptic movie, that somehow involved dinosaurs; leading to his statement on making a 'spin off' - Steven needs to wise up and stop waiting. --A3RO (mailbox) 21:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

IMHO this section would fit better in some gossip magazine than in an encyclopedia... Seneika (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Such magazines are about the gossip of the day. This so-called gossip goes back years. It seems more historical to me. Not everyone will be interested in this information, sure, but to those who are interested, it outlines what went going on behind the scenes to no avail. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

back in 2007 it was going to be filmed in may of 2008 but the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike petty much mess- it up the odds of it being made then but nothing can stop it from being made strike did not stop it the passing of Michael Crichton did not stop it.. we just have to see Universal Pictures gave them a deadline 2013 lets see if they make it --Wjmdem (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It's funny reading the first comment of this thread, 6 years later, after watching Jurassic Park IV in the cinema. "It will never be an actual reality" - Ahh, how wrong you were! 109.158.4.158 (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You're right, this is hilarious!!! 😂 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.192.2 (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Protection? (Protection request on 3 November 2015)

Since it's a popular franchise with a lot of changes coming up — 73.47.37.131 (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The page history does not show any significant activity to warrant protecting. Even if changes do come up, the protection policy states, "Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred." It also says, "Pre-emptive full protection of articles is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia." So protection is not warranted here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Major Vandalism

Can Somebody please revert this Article back to the edit that I made on February 12, 2016? Some unknown user has vandalised the cast and character section of the page and is adding actor and actresses who weren't even in the films to begin with. (Zucat)

I hope the new sequels wouldn't be a reiteration of Starship Troopers with a bit of Rise of the Planet of the Apes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.163.215 (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Jurassic Park 5 Page?

Considering the movie is now filming, should the page be created? That's usually Wikipedia's guidelines. 109.149.225.250 (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Filming has not begun yet. It's supposed to start in March 2017. I've just added the filming date to the page.  AJFU  (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Filming just began on February 23, which this page's sources back up. Should the fifth film be given its own page now? We know most of the cast and crew involved and the pre-production section on this page is quite lengthy so there should be more than enough material for an article. Xan152 (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Was just about to come back to this. The page is pretty much already here. There is a draft page here. Name should be changed though. 109.151.218.211 (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Netflix

As of 25 Feb 2017, Netflix is showing the first three films. Mark314159 (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jurassic Park. 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:

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) 06:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jurassic Park. 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:

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) 03:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jurassic Park. 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:

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)

So let's discuss, I suggest to either keep the box collection (noting that it contains the first four films and the fifth has not yet been released to theatres even and that the box is released as the new film will be released) image or change the logo to a more fitting and updated one like the Jurassic World logos. Noting also that I don't find the previous black and red image very appealing or up-to-date in this article. If I don't hear any objections I suppose I can just add it again. The suggested box collection as main image. TurokSwe (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

As you are the one that added it in not too long ago it would not be "keeping it", it would be replacing the logo that has been in the article for quite a long while. And no, you absolutely can not add it in without consensus and as me and Chaheel Riens reverting it shows there is not consensus for it. I do not see the point of having a random blu-ray set as the infobox image, what it contains does not matter. The franchise is very clearly known as the Jurassic Park franchise, Jurassic World and its similarly titled sequel being installments in it. The current logo is absolutely heavily associated with the franchise as a whole, even if it was made for the first film, with the other logos of the franchise being derivative of it.Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I basically concur with Ichthyovenator, so there's not much point in my reiterating it - but a few things that aren't covered above are:
  • Actual suitability of the image is lacking - the logo on the box set is not very clear. It's small, and at an angle.
  • This article is about the franchise, which encompasses much more than just the films - comics, theme park rides, etc. The current logo is applicable to the franchise - the proposed box set is applicable only to the first four films.
  • The proposed image is possibly non-free content, and is lacking suitable licensing.
  • The proposed image is low resolution (283x352) and while I accept that the established image is also low res (341x256) the level of detail of makes it more acceptable in the quality stakes.
Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
By "keeping it" I meant since it was removed, so yes, it would be accurate, regardless of the period of time that passed since its removal. The previous logo has surely been there for a while and I think that's part of the issue, it's not very fresh and up-to-date. I thought it was time to change it or improve it. If nobody raised any objections here I would assume they had no argument and would have no actual problem with the original image being replaced. The box set is the latest containing all current four films (again, the fifth has not come out in theatres yet, much less on DVD/Blu-ray) and is up-to-date. How does its contents not matter? Of course the franchise is known as Jurassic Park, but it is also known as Jurassic World (as if it wasn't already clear that the JW-trilogy were further installments in the JP-franchise) and this happens to be the current title of the franchise. Besides, if you still wish to keep the Jurassic Park-title then no worries, it has received a new logo as well. We could even feature an image with both logos. Either way, I feel very strongly about changing the image to one that is better and more up-to-date (as was done for the Alien franchise article for instance, which would also be derivative, but merely being derivative is no argument to keep the old one, and how would it be, it's still very much heavily associated with the franchise). As far as the logo being too small, you could just remove the box set and just use an updated logo, and this would be equally well applicable to the franchise. Again, I have no problem with the box set being removed, just use a better and more updated infobox image. I feel most of the arguments made here are against the box set itself rather than updating the infobox image. TurokSwe (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Mostly, but not completely true. Much of the argument against is about the proposed image - the box set - which is unsuitable for the reasons outlined above, but also any change may well be challenged as the franchise is "Jurassic Park" not "Jurassic World" - this article itself is called "Jurassic Park", and any image in the infobox should reflect that, not be an aka of the franchise.
The reason the current logo has stayed in situ for so long is that it's the best representative image of the franchise.
I'm also a little puzzled by your belief that "If nobody raised any objections here I would assume they had no argument" - why would you hold that opinion when you had already been reverted twice by two different editors? Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I basically concur with Chaheel Riens above, but just to add to this, I am not sure what you feel is out of date with the old logo. The Alien franchise example you use is not applicable as the franchise as a whole did not have a consistent logo before the release of Alien: Covenant, which used a logo derivative of the original logo for the Alien film, note how the font and style of the logos for the films change with every iteration. In contrast, every single film or other part of the franchise (e.g. tie-in books, games etc) in the Jurassic Park franchise use the same logo, or a derivative version of it. It represents the franchise as a whole very well.
An "updated" logo, such as that of Jurassic World does not do that as it pertains to that specific film. Furthermore, any newer logo is derivative of the old one, meaning that the one currently in use is also the most recognizeable and "inclusive". Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll just clarify my position - I am not against a new image/logo - if it is an improvement over the old one. So far the suggested replacement is not an improvement, hence I am against it. Should a better example be found, I'd support replacement, but that has yet to happen. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course, but I think any new image/logo should certainly be discussed before replacing the current one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that the article should be changed to JW rather than JP (if anything, I'm suggesting featuring both logos, or at the very least replacing the current image with a better one). The other example I'm suggesting is the following logo (excluding the cover on which it is featured); https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81dEScugRUL._SL1500_.jpg TurokSwe (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Whilst I personally like the current one (the original) better, that one being a derivative version of it, it isn't much of a problem if it can be isolated from the cover it's on. I still don't really see why you so strongly want to change it though.Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Audiences scores such as those from Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB or other user voted web polls are not a reliable source and should not be included. I have removed them from the article.

Cinemascore and Rentrak are different because they are audience tracking companies that perform organised audience surveys in cinemas during the opening weekend (not web polls) and these are considered reliable sources but readers should know these surveys really only indicate that fans enthusiastic enough to see a movie on opening weekend got what they were expecting. -- 109.76.186.141 (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Move request

I know someone asked to move the page, and it did happen. The user said there is no need for "(franchise)" to be there, and unfortunately, I find that inaccurate. The page for the Toy Story franchise has "(franchise)" in it, and the page for the film has the "(1995 film)" in it. Please move this page, because the pages need to be distinguished (I am sure that "(1995 film)" is in the page for the film). 2601:205:4100:CB5B:80DE:E032:6B2F:D69C (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The move request was done nearly 5 years ago. There's no reason to assume that in that time any new arguments have come forward, but there's no reason why you can't propose a move yourself. Whilst other franchises do include the term "franchise" WP:OTHERSTUFF reminds us that such an argument holds no water. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Battle at Big Rock

Since Battle at Big Rock has aired, I think it's time we should replace the redirect of it with the article about it. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Wrong statement

"Jurassic Park, later known as Jurassic World"... this is totally wrong. Both terms (Jurassic Park and Jurassic World) refer to fictional wildlife parks, but the second term doesn't replace the first one. A source is provided, but that latter only names the franchise by means of the park in the sequels rather than the park in the original trilogy. That statement in Wikipedia ("Jurassic Park, later known as Jurassic World") should be corrected. I suggest the following sentence:

A) Jurassic Park and its Jurassic World sequels, is an American science fiction media franchise centered on [...]

OR

B) Jurassic Park and Jurassic World are titles of an American science fiction media franchise centered on [...]

What do you think? Kintaro (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe and "also known as" could work. El Millo (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, the fact is that everybody knows that the franchise is popularly known as "Jurassic Park" only. But the intellectual property owners are only mentionning "Jurassic World" due to obvious exploitation reasons: we are now in the middle of a new trilogy, and the title is not "Jurassic Park". For example, "www.jurassicpark.com" redirects to "www.jurassicworld.com"... Thus, I suggest to stick to my above suggestion : Choice "A" ? Choice "B" ? Any other suggestion ? Kintaro (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
At this point I think A) sounds better and avoids recentism issues. (Though I should add as written it introduces a weird singular/plural issue.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I understand the issue. Yes, these names refer to fictional parks, but they also refer to the films and the franchise, including games and cartoons. It seems clear that the franchise has been renamed Jurassic World, in other words replacing the Jurassic Park name from about 2015 onward. Even toys based on the original film's characters use the Jurassic World branding. In recent years, the original name has been used for Jurassic Park: The Game (2011) and Return to Jurassic Park (2019). A few of the rides still retain the Jurassic Park name as well, but otherwise, everything else over the past five years has been Jurassic World. Therefore, It seems correct to say "later known as Jurassic World." This source establishes that the franchise is also popularly known as Jurassic World: "There are a lot of fans that just know it as Jurassic World. That's their entry to the franchise."  AJFU  (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I no longer insist... Regards, Kintaro (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Jurassic World Dominion has begun filming

Tweet from Trevorrow here 'Day One': https://twitter.com/colintrevorrow/status/1232390966927122432

Given filming has begun, it means the film is now in production and therefore should have an article of its own. Gistech (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hammond Foundation?

I think it would be nice to have some page about the Hammond Foundation's link to all of this, since I can't find anything about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlanetOrca (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Notification of deletion of Isla Nublar

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isla Nublar (4th nomination) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Not Science Fiction

Jurassic Park is not science fiction just because it's fiction with science in it. There are no spaceships. No time travel or space warps. Calling Jurassic Park science fiction would be like calling Harry Potter fantasy just because it involves magic. Fantasy is stuff like Lord Of The Rings.Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can't make it back into bread. (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious? That Jurassic Park doesn't take place in a sciencey future makes it not "science fiction" even though it uses unrealistic cloning science to grow dinosaurs? That, and Harry Potter IS fantasy fiction because it has WIZARDS at WIZARD SCHOOL.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. Jurassic Park is science fiction, just not the kind you would expect. Dinosaurs can't be cloned. In actuality, dinosaurs are too old to be cloned. Jurassic Park is science fiction, and I hope you understand that. 2601:205:4100:CB5B:80DE:E032:6B2F:D69C (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Harry Potter: Harry Potter is a series of seven fantasy novels written by British author J. K. Rowling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Motion comic

Hello, @Derjenigederzukunftseht: Sources do not call the motion comic a web series. I would think that a motion comic would fit fine under a section named "Comics". You said it can't go there because it has voice acting, but that appears to be a standard feature in motion comics, and why would that matter anyway? I don't think readers would expect to find it under "Television". It seems misplaced there.

Anyway, someone (see section below) has now moved it to a standalone section titled "Web series", but I think the "other media" section seems best (either under "Comics" or a new subheading titled "Motion comic", if it's really necessary to distinguish the two). Also, I could not find any evidence that it is called "Jurassic World: Motion Comic", as you stated here.  AJFU  (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@AJFU: it's a web series because it's it has an intro and spells "Episode 1 [...]" and the title. Yeah the series is called just Motion Comic. I should have left it that way. And I'm saying it's a web series and it doesn't go to the comics because motion comics are taken as short films. So this was a weekly web series. I don't know 🤷‍♂️. I just feel like web series fits the best, also we could get another one. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
But that's my opinion. I don't know if that's a good opinion tho. I mean there is no right or wrong but I don't know Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm confused. You keep calling it a web series, but you've also called it a short film. And you had it listed in the "Television" section when it clearly is not a TV show. Anyway, none of these terms are used in the sources. If sources call it a motion comic, why should we deviate from those sources and call it something else that cannot be verified in any of the sources? Motion comics and web series may be the same in some cases, but the sources in this instance only use "motion comic". If it's a motion comic, and sources call it a motion comic, then that's what readers will be looking for: a motion comic, not a web series.
As for where to place it, Wikipedia itself categorizes both comic books and motion comics as a form of comics. That was also my intention for the "Comics" section, which would cover anything related to comics (both comic books and motion comics).
it's a web series because it's it has an intro and spells "Episode 1 [...]" and the title. How is this different from a motion comic? Aren't some motion comics divided into episodes? I don't understand why having episodes and a title intro would automatically make it a web series.
Yeah the series is called just Motion Comic. Do you have sources for this? The individual episodes do have titles, but the overall series does not, as far as I can tell. If that is the case, then "Comic" should be lowercased.
also we could get another one. Another motion comic? Why would that matter? If another one ever does get released, we would simply update the section heading from "Motion comic" to "Motion comics".  AJFU  (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
@AJFU: I meant that motion comics in general are taken as short films. Well here official Twitter account for Jurassic World is calling it Jurassic World: Motion Comic and calling it an episode. I think it implies that it is a web series. https://twitter.com/JurassicWorld/status/1205604163733741569?t=OC8kZTl2I16ps9EvQZ7Gnw&s=19. Also yeah if motion comics are devided into episodes it makes it a series. Comics have issues or just one.

Why would that matter? It would be "season" 2 if another would get released. 

Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if there's a misunderstanding here. Perhaps I wasn't clear before. I'm not disputing that this is a series. The dispute is whether it's a web series. All the reliable sources here specifically call it a motion comic series. As for an exact title, a different Twitter link just calls it "the Jurassic World motion comic", same as the sources cited in the article, so "Motion comic" or "Motion comic series" still seems like the best section heading.  AJFU  (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
well here https://twitter.com/JurassicWorld/status/1202998270072504320?t=uLhuKdjiSbA3pz6iTEOcpw&s=19 they calling it Jurassic World Motion Comic. So yeah it was a little mistake they made on the 4th episode. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Or maybe the first three were a mistake and they finally caught it with the fourth. If it is called Jurassic World Motion Comic, I find it strange that none of the cited sources mention this title. Others think the title is "Comics" (not "Comic") and that it's enclosed in parentheses [1], or that the title includes a colon [2]. "Motion comic series" would avoid all this back-and-forth.
Do you still wanna call it a "web series"? If so, please provide reliable sources (the Twitter links don't use this term).  AJFU  (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Lego stuff

To be honest, I feel like the Lego Jurassic universe should get it's own section. Like it's a bit strange to see it within canon media. Like it doesn't belong in there. 2001:4DD1:5BAF:0:8838:7C5C:C9B7:5B93 (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean that we should move the Lego stuff out of the television section because it's apparently not canon? Sections should be arranged in a way that aids the reader. TV projects should go in the TV section regardless of canonicity. I'm not sure that there even is any explicit confirmation about exactly what is and is not canon.
Also, please see this section. A different Twitter page shows "motion comic" in lowercase.  AJFU  (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Lego stuff actually is officially non-Canon. And I kind of agree with the user above. Not because it isn't canon to the films but because I don't really think people would like to see Lego series in their faces as the first result in Television. Like it's something most people skip. I mean like have it in the television section but under CC like ===Lego Jurassic World===
  • Lego Jurassic World The Secret Exhibition

etc. I may be totally wrong on this idea Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Exhibit* my autocorrect is shit sometimes Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't really think people would like to see Lego series in their faces as the first result in Television. I can't imagine that most people would mind, and for those who do, it's not like they have to search high and low for Camp Cretaceous. Most of the article is arranged in chronological order, and the Lego projects came first. Ideally, the Lego stuff should be in a single, brief section, which could also be easily skipped over if readers have no interest in it. Camp Cretaceous is the very next thing they see. It's consistent with the order already used in the cast section.  AJFU  (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Sections and tables

An IP editor (without explanation) has restored several section headings which I think are unnecessary per WP:OVERSECTION. It just clutters the table of contents. The user has also rearranged things in a way that seems illogical. For example, I don't think theme park rides and exhibitions count as "other media", yet they're all currently lumped together in that section. I previously had them under a section called "Attractions", which seemed okay to me.

The IP also moved the canceled TV projects out of the "Television" section and has put them under a new section at the bottom of the article. However, if I were looking for info on a television series (canceled or not), I would look to the television section. Why separate it? Seems like it's just making it harder for readers to find what they're looking for.

The IP has also introduced tables such as this one, which is completely unnecessary. I also don't see the need for this one. MOS:TVOVERVIEW suggests that a series overview only be used for shows with at least two seasons. The previous overview, seen here solely for Camp Cretaceous, is the only one we really need, due to the amount of information. This is what the Lego section previously looked like. It could be modified a bit to include a few more details, but I don't see the need for a table there.

This seems to be the same unresponsive editor described here, so I don't know if they will respond here (I left them a note). In the meantime, I'm curious if others have an opinion on this.  AJFU  (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I just make better style with tables and sections :) --46.40.89.215 (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. You haven't specifically addressed any of my concerns.
Furthermore, I see that you have added an empty section for Lego Jurassic World: Double Trouble, which is just an episode of Lego Jurassic World: Legend of Isla Nublar that was apparently marketed as a "special". Despite that label, it doesn't appear to be notable. I don't see why it should be mentioned here. It's not a separate animated series, nor is it ongoing, but you have it listed as "(2020–present)". This was a one-time thing that aired last year. Also, empty sections are not helpful to readers, and having non-links in the infobox doesn't seem helpful either. Lego Jurassic World: The Secret Exhibit is also a television special, not a series.  AJFU  (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok i will fix this! --46.40.89.215 (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's not quite what I had in mind. Rather than trying to fix the "Double Trouble" section, it should just be removed entirely. It's just a non-notable episode. And rather than filling out the newly added tables (with often-repetitive details), they should just be removed completely. A small, well written section does not also require a table to repeat basic information like release dates and the number of episodes. Furthermore, I don't understand this, where you feel that it's necessary to have both a "Music" and a "Soundtrack" heading. If they're all soundtracks, why not just call them that and cut out the "Music" heading?
Instead of trying to fix all these problems, it would be simpler to just restore this revision and then work to improve it from there. Like I said, your edits have highlighted the need for a few more details in this section. Things like air dates, networks, and the number of episodes, which should all be written out in prose. We don't also need a table to repeat such details when the section can convey them on its own.  AJFU  (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay I added this revision with minor changes... Do you like it like this? I think this style is really good! My style was not good. --46.40.89.215 (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is much better for the readers. Thanks. The only main issue I have is the separate headings for "Music" and "Soundtracks". There's no need for both. We should pick one.  AJFU  (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi yes i remove this is only (Music) thanks for new section board games --46.40.89.215 (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Soundtracks was add again... Maybe you remove? --46.40.89.215 (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It appears that the other editor only reverted you because of certain edits to the infobox, and the "Soundtrack" heading apparently got re-added by mistake. I removed it.  AJFU  (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes! Thanks... Now is good page! --46.40.89.215 (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Las Cinco Muertes (The Five Deaths)

Shouldn't we add The Five Deaths to the article? I mean, they are pretty important, and were heavily featured in Jurassic World Evolution. They also had a few mentions in the Lost World, and were shown in a map in the movie. Cryolophosaurus Ellioti5858 (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the Isla Sorna section, and I added details about the game appearance (seen here).  AJFU  (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jurassic_Park/Archive_1&oldid=1247291052"