Jump to content

Talk:Prehistoric Park/Archive 1

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Translation

I want to translate this article im German for the German wikipedia, but our wiki can not import it (roll eyes). How can I assume the article´s history in the German Wiki? Our Wiki can´t explaine me that (roll eyes). It´s a really stupid Wiki I must say... Greetings from Germany! --91.15.231.60 (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Article

I'm really pleased the way this article is taking shape. It's being updated with lots of info about the show. NeilEvans 22:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

About Supercroc. The details are really good but not every mention of the Deinosuchus needs to have a link on it. Michaelritchie200 08:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Page has come on really well on the whole. The pictures are really good because otherwise it is just a hell of a lot of text! Perhaps a picture is needed on episode 6? And for episode 5, maybe a picture of one of the arthropods? Also, might it be worth having a separare page for episode details, or even each episode having its own page? Michaelritchie200 08:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I am getting around to putting in more pictures for the sections mentioned when my schedule allows so please be patient with me. Also I think, personaly, that it would be preferable to keep all the information on one page. But I will, naturally, go with the majority decision on whatever is decided. --Nubula 01:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The final pictures as promised. Thank you all for being so patient and i'm sorry for the long delay. My final picture for the start of episode 6 (one of the crocodile pool)will be uploaded tommorow if all goes as planned (if i'd remembered to bring it with me with the others it would have been done today. Sorry for that.) --Nubula 11:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing the episode summary

  • I originally edited the third episode summary (I haven't seen the fourth one yet) because it seemed a bit overly long, and I felt it should be simplified a bit to make it easier to read. Does anyone else have any opinions on this? Deinonychus, 09:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Some people want the longer version with all the information. For example, see NeilEvans's comment in #Article (the previous section on this page). Anthony Appleyard 08:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Australian Screening

The first episode is currently being aired and the narration by David Jason has been replaced with an Aussified version by Charles Woolley, a presenter of the Australian version of 60 Minutes. Personally, I would have preferred to hear the original version. 203.220.191.93 12:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Terence & Matilda (the T.rexes) breeding?

Final Episode

I never thought I'd see a mammoth squaring up to a T-rex! What a sight that was! Pure genius that last episode with all the animals from different eras mixing together. A brilliant series. Michaelritchie200 17:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Episode 5 points

More Points

Can't all these points and production notes on episode 5 go in Trivia? They look a bit out of place. Michaelritchie200 07:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This: "Running the jeep in air with nearly twice as much oxygen as it was designed for, in episode 5, its motor would likely have run badly, or overheated and wrecked itself, if it had not ditched in a swamp within a minute of arriving." Is not necessarily true. If the Jeep has a Lambda feedback loop fuel injection system, the 02 sensor would signal the ECU to alter the fuel metering to get the mixture correct for combustion.

  • Putting vehicle concerns aside - what would be the effects on human beings of such an overabundance of atmospheric oxygen? Surely they'd be affected, possibly euphoric. No wonder Nigel wasn't that bothered when he had a chunk taken out of his ankle :)ComaDivine 13:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Another error: Differences in air pressure and composition would kill people and animals crossing Time Portal to and from Carboniferous and Cretaceous (compare http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/Courses/Eeb477/Dudley_98.pdf with wikipedia articles on decompression and oxygen toxicity). In details: Differences in atmospheric pressure would cause lethal decompression, unless Time Portal was attached to a decompression chamber. The same would prevent staff (and possibly visitors) from entering arthropod house without a protective suit. Oxygen content of 35% in Carboniferous and ca. 25% in Mesosoic would kill people from oxygen poisoning. To the opposite, dinosaurs and other cretaceous animals brought to Holocene would suffer from altitude sickness without lenghty acclimatization. 131.152.84.114
  • 35% oxygen would not kill Nigel etc in the Carboniferous. I have breathed 100% oxygen when scuba diving with an oxygen rebreather and I am still here. Oxygen toxicity only happens when breathing over approx. 2 or more atmospheres ppO2. Anthony Appleyard 20:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted a trivia point. It was about Nigel telling the cameraman not to make a sudden movement with the rexes, saying it might be linked to Jurassic Park. But this is common practice when dealing with wild animals, especially large carnivoresMichael.O'SullivanLim

Specific names

Stop deleting the species names. Some people want to know the species names, even if you don't. Anthony Appleyard 06:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't me! Michaelritchie200 06:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, OK. I just think adding species names when most of us are not paleontologists or if there's only one species in the programme is kinda strange. Dora Nichov 00:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, if your so unspecific as to call Mammuthus "mammoth" or Canis "dire wolf", then why do you have to be so specific as to call Tyrannosaurus "Tyrannosaurus rex"? Dora Nichov 03:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Some prehistoric animals have multiple species that have been described; do we know that the Ornithomimus are really O. velox? O. velox isn't the only species of Ornithomimus that's been described. As for including species names in general (regardless of wether they're the only species in the genus), is it really that important? The listings are supposed to show general information. If someone wants more specific info, well that's what the blue links are for. Jerkov 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The species names are taken from the series' official website so I think we can say that they are O. velox. I think the names are important, if they are reffered to as being that species in the series, which I think most were referred to by their full species name.--NeilEvans 18:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jerkov. Most normal people don't need to know about specie names, and when they do, it has little meaning for them. THAT'S why I keep removing those names. The people that want to know the specie names, I'm afraid, are in the minority. That's what the links are for -- more specific information. Dora Nichov 10:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

But many people do want to know the species names. And, what if the genus has more then one species? Anthony Appleyard 10:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Give me a list of people that want to know specie names. Dinosaur Planet also reveals the species names on its website, but you don't see anyone rushing over there just to add specie names. Dora Nichov 11:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thousands of articles contain matter that various particular readers don't want to know, but people leave that matter in. This is getting to be rather a storm in a teacup. Lets have a vote on how many people specifically want the species names to be removed? Anthony Appleyard 11:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the different animals were refered to by there specific names, so they should be given those names when listed in this article.--NeilEvans 19:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote to keep the species names. So far that's three in favor, two against.--NubulaNubula 23:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, we should change a refernces to "titanosaurus" to "Titanosaurus" and "T. rex" to "Tyrannosaurus" so that it's more encyclopedic, anyways, we don't usually call Titanosaurus titanosaur! Dora Nichov 11:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No sooner said than done, but feel free to correct any I might have missed. Also I'm I right in assuming the debate over the species names has been settled? Nubula Nubula 00:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The specie name thing is settled -- for now. By the way, I see a lot of "Microraptors", "Tyrannosauruses", etc. Actually, the plural names of prehistoric animals shouldn't be changed. Dora Nichov 09:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"The species name thing is settled -- for now." Please keep your vailed threats to yourself Nichov. NubulaNubula 21:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The correct Latin plurals of Microraptor and Tyrannosaurus are Microraptores and Tyrannosauri. Anthony Appleyard 13:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, look at this: Animals Park. Doesn't it look familiar...? My guess is some guy made it up based on this prgramme and article. I mean, come on, dragons? Griffins? Pokemon!? Dora Nichov 13:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's almost certainly made up. That user (Dinosauras) should be blocked. Starring "me", etc... Dora Nichov 13:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animals Park. Anthony Appleyard 14:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Nubula, I'm sorry if I offended you, I didn't mean to threaten. Also the plural names: I'm sure they're not changed. Just look at this: Plural names. (Click on writer's guide, I think that's what it's called) Dora Nichov 09:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. That link said:

  • A pack of Tyrannosaurus rex (specie name included)
  • A pack of Tyrannosaurs (only genus name)

So both Tyrannosaurus and Tyrannosaurs is acceptable as plural terms. Not Tyrannosauri, however. Dora Nichov 10:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, should we report Dinosauras? his only contributions are pure nonsense: Animals Park and First water birds. (both have been deleted) Dora Nichov 10:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Apology excepted, (grin.) As for the plural issue, I was under the impression that I had fixed that but it seems I haven’t. So I’m in a state of confusion on that topic. On a side note I agree with you on the need to turn Dinosauras in to the proper authorities. --Nubula 01:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

We should report Dinosauras, and QUICK! Before he keeps doing silly nonesense again. This is what I know of plural terms:

  • If it's a species names, it isn't changed. eg: A flock of Microraptor gui
  • If it's just genus name, both plural terms and nonchanged names are accepted. eg: A pack of Velociraptors or A pack of Velociraptor
    • If the name ends with "s", (not including "us") then it's replaced by "ids". eg: A herd of Triceratopids
      • If the names ends with "us", (not including "saurus"), then it's replaced by "ids". eg: A flock of Gallimimids
        • If the name ends with "saurus" then it is replaced with "saurs". eg: A herd of Apatosaurs
    • If the names end with anything else, just add a "s". eg: A pack of Troodons

But why bother remembering all that when you don't have to change names anyway? Dora Nichov 11:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

We should agree on which kind of plural term we want to use. (Changed or unchanged, see my plural guide above). From what I know, both are acceptable, but it's funny to see "Microraptor", "Microraptors" and "Microraptores" all over the page. Dora Nichov 01:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If nobody disagrees I'll do the following changes:

  • Change all "T.rex", "T-rex", etc to "Tyrannosaurus"
  • Changes all "Titanosaurs", "Titanosaur", etc to "Titanosaurus"
  • While I'm not going to remove the species names in the animal lists, I'm going to remove any in the episode summaries
  • Change all "terror bird" to "Phorusrhacos"

Dora Nichov 12:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If it is provable that the titanosaurs seen are a Titanosaurus species and not in another genus. Anthony Appleyard 09:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

But Mei long please and not merely Mei. Anthony Appleyard 09:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

More:

  • I'm not going to change the common names in the summaries, but I'm going to change "mammoth" to "Mammuthus", "cave bear" to "Ursus", etc in the animal lists
  • I'm going to change all plurals to non-changed plurals

Any objections to this or my last message? Dora Nichov 09:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

While on the topic of names, Anthony Appleyard is quite correct when he asked about the Titanosaurs. I think the time has come to discover the secret identity of the parks Titanosaurs herd once an for all. From the article The species the Titanosaurs belong to was never stated. "Titanosaur" is a group name, not a genus or species name, although, since they came from northeast China, they are presumably Titanosaurus. The end of that statment makes no sense since the species name Titanosaurs is now invalid, renamed Isisaurus. Also no species belonging to the Titanosauroidea come from China exept for Euhelopus which did not come from this period of time. Sooo what are they? Nubula 11:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Only ONE species of Titanosaurus have been renamed, sorry. Anthony Appleyard, you want all "mammoth" to be "Mammuthus"? By the way, if you read my plural guide, you'll see that both changed and unchanged are acceptable. Dora Nichov 12:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, why not Mei? The Mei long article is called "Mei". Dora Nichov 12:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must Correct you, Titanosaur colberti was remained, the others T. indicus, T. madagascariensis and T. blanfordi are considered nomen dubium boardering on nomen invalida. Secondly that does not help your argument in the least as it still does not change the fact that no species belonging to the Titanosauroidea come from China exept for Euhelopus which was already extinct by that period of time. So what are they? Nubula 14:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I'm stumped about the titanosaurs too, but what about the other suggestions? By the way, Anthony Appleyard, every prehistoric book and documentary I've seen NEVER uses changed plural names, so there you have it. Dora Nichov 09:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping you could tell me. Off the top of my head I guess we could try pawn them of as a relic population of Euhelopus, like the Australian Dwarf Allosaurs, surviving on in this one region where they've gone extinct everywhere else. Or that their a new species that has not been found in a fossilised state. Problem being how far can we go with suggestions before we leave what's cannon and enter the realms of fan-fiction? --Nubula 10:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. By the way, should I also change all "sabertooth" to "Smilodon". It simply seems more encyclopedic. Dora Nichov 14:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you agree with? that their a new species or relic Euhelopus? as a side note I agree about the smilodon, and no sooner said than done. Nubula 16:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree the titanosaurs are either relic Euhelpous or a new/un-named species. I didn't do the Smilodon edits (or any other edits I said I would do) 'cause I'm asking for everyone's opinions. Dora Nichov 10:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who did the Smilodon edits, I humbly appologise if I wasn't clear. Also I'm preparing the edits about the Titanosaurs, so if anyone else has any more possible theories or evidence to put forward, by all means do so before I get started tommorow. Nubula 11:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know anyone did edit. Thanks! What do you think of my other suggestions? Dora Nichov 11:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that you should change Terror Bird to Phorusrhacos and Trex to Tyrannosaurus. Mammoth and Mei long I'd leave as they are. Nubula 10:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Dora Nichov 12:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Done! Feel free to do more, especially if I've missed any... Dora Nichov 13:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks you for that. To be honest with you, I think there is very little else that can be added to this article, until the much hoped for second series appears. Nubula 08:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But I still have to see the first series though! ^_^ Dora Nichov 10:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Please can we settle this dispute quietly? Anthony Appleyard 23:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? This is over for a LONG time! And we don't need "*" in front of every message. Dora Nichov 10:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Locations

I'm wondering if it would be worth putting in a section about the locations within the park eg Mammoth Mount, The Bug House, Nigels Base ect. I've written it out, but now I find myself hesitating to put it in as the information on some locations (The Crocodile Pool for example) is so sparce would it be worth having it? --Nubula 21:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with putting in the locations in the park. In fact, I haven't seen this programme yet, and others that haven't would like to know about the exhibits too. Dora Nichov 09:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Parasaurolophus and Nyctosaurus in the park?

These two lines in ==List of creatures in the park== seem to be forever in and out like planes at an airport:-

  • A herd of Parasaurolophus - This species was seen only in the opening credits
  • A group of Nyctosaurus - this species is seen only in the opening credits

Please can we definitively discuss and decide wheter to include these 2 lines or not? Anthony Appleyard 12:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think these should definitely be included, because the Opening Credits are still part of the show. I think as long was we point out that they were only seen in the opening credits, they should be included. I have also noted that only one user has openly opposed and removed these lines, perhaps he/she could explain why. User:DeadGuy

I don't think they belong in the list; firstly because they where NOT in the park when the series ended no matter what you say DeadGuy. Secondly the opening credits are NOT part of the show as it blatantly contradicts the park layout, the status of the parks inhabitants (apart from one species they are not free roaming), the numbers of each species (they have ONE Triceratops, the credits show Three.) I see no reason why most of what was seen on the show has to be discarded, can't have it both way, just so you can try and squeeze you round fanboy peg into a square hole. Nubula 17:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
They are not just inaccuracies they are blatant contradiction from what we know to be true. What was shown in the credits must be an alternate universe park as it clearly is not the park seen in the series. I would also like to point out that the opening credits are part of the show, seeing as a) they follow the theme b)they were made for the show and c)they mention the storyline and the title? Until you produce a verfifiable statment from the shows producers stating what was seen in the opening credits was part of the shows cannon, no it is not. Plus, the opening credits could also be a representation of a future Prehistoric Park That's a nice fan theory but you have no proof of that. Nubula 18:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Personaly, I can't see how you can say that your point still stands when you can't make a logical rebutal of my own. To be Frank, and I too am saying this in the most respectful way, your call for a vote sounds like your realise that you can't win through Appeal to Authority and Slippery Slope/False Dilemma fallacies and are trying to gain the majority support in order to win by default. Nubula 10:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Both of you are talking quite logically, but Nubula talks more sense in my opinion. I'm on his side. Dora Nichov 11:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

1)Fine. You want a logical rebuttal? I will take all of your points and shred them. Your have not answered ANY of my points, your just coming up with new ones. 2)This theory is flawed seeing as an overhead view of the park has never been seen. Therefore, you are also making a fan assumption because you have no evidence to support your claim that this doesn't follow the park design. Plus it is only one part of the park, so therefore you can't say "there's no buildings in it" because not every part of the park has buildings. It could be away from the main complex. Exept in the begining of each and every episode when we seen an overhead Nigel driving from the gate to the main complex and we can see the surronding terrain looks nothing like the one seen in the credits. Not to mention Nigel showed us a map of the park in the first episode which does conform to what was seen. 3)The fact that all the animals are running free does not mean that it contradicts the series. If you knew anything about episode 6, you'd know there was a mass breakout and it took several weeks to repair. Exept we see Bob trying to recapture the Ornithomimus and the Wooly Rhino almost at once didn't we. We saw park keeper arming themselves with tranquilizer guns didn't we. We've seen in other episode's that the park as a policy of keeping the animals in the holding pens at the time portal while their enclosures are being prepared didn't we. So your theory that the animals where just left to roam for weeks does not hold water. 4)Give me one documentary where you see every second of their quest, and I will remove this claim. Exept that later IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH you said I would like to point out that this is a work of fiction you blatantly contradicted yourself! please make up your mind because you cannot have it both ways. 5)Several weeks pass by through episodes. Therefore you can't say it contradicts what is in the episode because you do not know the time and place. Provide Citation for that claim! because given the rate at wich the Tyrannosaurs mature I'd say several years pass before each episode. 6)And another factor is that you claim that because of a few mistakes (the number of the Triceratops for one) removes something from canon You ACTUALY ADMIT that it's wrong but but still want to include it anyway? and although I don't like repeting myself I'll say it again: Until you produce a verfifiable statment from the shows producers stating what was seen in the opening credits was part of the shows cannon, I do not exept that it was EVER cannon to begin with. 7)And also not all of my claims have been debunked, even though you said you debunked them. Funny because I've made a rebutal to each and every one and you cannot make any counter argument but jump to brand new arguments instead. 8)In episode 1, when confronted by the three Tyrannosaurs, Nigel says "no sudden movements", presumably to a cameraman who is where the viewer is seeing from. Yet when he is seen from another viewpoint running away soon after in the next scene. Red Herring Fallacy. We are not talking about Nigels teleporting cameraman but the opening credits, stay on topic, don't you dare try and cut and run on me. If that was the best you can do then I'm not impressed. Nubula 12:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
As a matter of fact I had noticed. But I Continued just to see if you could back up any of your claims, which you can't otherwise you would have (funny you can't debunk my claims even though they are apparently sinking and don't make sense isn't it), or if you would act like a craven coward and cut and run as you have. The fact that you backed off and put it in another section rather than the main list is a surrender even if you don't have the guts to acknowlage it. PS - just because you say something does not make it true that the pot calling the kettle black and for an experienced debater you don't seem to realise the amount of fallices you used and that it wasn't for me to prove my claims as the burden of proof was on your side. Nubula 17:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Alright, Nebula. I admit defeat. You are obviously a better debater than I and I have learned many things from this discussion. I admit that my claims didn't stand much of a chance against yours, and I just kept going out of my own pride. I appreciate you showing me my place, and I appreciate it. You are obviously the better debater in this section, and I must ask for your forgiveness. I do hope that you don't hate me for this section, as in truth I guess I saw the whole debate as practice. As I stated earlier, I respect you, and rest assured my future debates will be better in the future. Thanks, and sorry. --DeadGuy 23:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad everything's alright now! Dora Nichov 09:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I was going to help you Nubula, but by the time I could, the debate had been finished! Anyways, you did fine on your own, and I'm glad it has been settled. Dora Nichov 09:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised you posted back Deadguy, I honesty didn’t expect you to, and given your post was an apology to boot, I really don't know what to say. I’m afraid I’ve misjudged you badly. I’m really am sorry (whether you believe it or not) about calling you a fanboy in my first post, but was to stubborn to admit that it was uncalled for. I tend to be a gruff, combinative person by nature even though I don’t mean to come across that way. I realy don't want to make an enemy out of you and I hope this means we can draw a line under this and shake hands. Nubula 09:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed.--DeadGuy 20:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

In-universe tag

I stumbled on this article and was a little taken aback by the predominantly in-universe style of writing being used here (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)). Among other things, the debate above about whether dinosaurs shown in the credits live in the park or not completely misses the point that the park does not exist, and should not be written about as if it exists in an encyclopedia. Any inconsistency in the storytelling that is rationalized by anything other than behind-the-scenes commentary by the creators is original research. Simply pointing out that the dinosaurs featured in the credits do not match the scenario presented in the show should be sufficient. The entire article needs a major overhaul to remedy this. For example, one section begins with the phrase "The park appears to have a central base,". This implies that the author is investigating an actual location based on available evidence. This should be changed to "The park had a central base," or if it was never stated that this was the case in the show, should be removed as original speclation on the part of the author. Use of the present tense implies that the park continues to exist, which is incorrect--it exists only within the context of a TV show that has already aired, and should be past tense. There are many, many other examples along these lines. Dinoguy2 22:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Whether each item is encyclopaedic or not, is a matter of opinion. Encyclopaedicness is sometimes relative; e.g. to me the thousands of Wikipedia articles about little-known pop music bands and their albums and songs are unencyclopaedic and most pop music is merely a horrible noise; but it is interesting to many people. Any given information may be interesting or useful to some but not to others. Many have worked on this matter, and they would be unwilling to see it summarily deleted en masse. Compare the amount of matter people insert about Star Wars and Star Trek and Buck Rogers etc.
The start of the page makes it clear that Prehistoric Park does not exist in the real world, withut risk of readers confusing fiction with reality.
"that the park continues to exist": that depends on if a second series is issued, which it may be. The park exists (in its fictional universe) at last evidence. Use of past tense may imply to some that within its fictional universe Prehistoric Park was closed down.
Re "the phrase "The park appears to have a central base,". This implies that the author is investigating an actual location based on available evidence.": in reality the readers are investigating a fictional location based on evidence available in the episodes: which is somewhat similar. Anthony Appleyard 09:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
"readers are investigating a fictional location based on evidence available in the episodes" This is called original research and is prohibited in Wikipedia. All those insignificant articles about pop stars, etc. are encyclopeadic in style, I'm not talking about content here. Read the examples on the linked guidleine to see why talking about a subject as if it's real is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The specifically address an example where the article starts out by saying the subject is fiction, but then goes on to treat it as if it were not. The guideline specifically says that investigations, logical inferences, etc. are fine for fan sites and fan wikis, etc, but not for Wikipedia. I suggest you read the whole article.
"second series is issued, which it may be. The park exists (in its fictional universe) at last evidence. Use of past tense may imply to some that within its fictional universe Prehistoric Park was closed down." How do you know there may be a second series? How do you know the park was closed down? What sources say these things? Or are you guessing based on your own inferences, which is not allowed on Wikipedia? Dinoguy2 19:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
"readers are investigating a fictional location based on evidence available in the episodes" This is called original research and is prohibited in Wikipedia. No it's not because it’s all given citations from the episodes and it has already been stated as fiction, no where does it act has if it where real. And how do you expect us to describe the series without making references to the locations where the fictional events took place? By your logic I expect you to go and alter the star wars articles as they also describe fictional locations. And saying that they are encyclopaedic in style is just your way of dodging the issue. Again whether each item is encyclopaedic or not, is a matter of opinion. And yours contradicts the majority of the people's here. Nubula 04:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edits discussion

(User:Dinoguy2's paragraphs which I have marked ###, are answered below by User:Nubula. (Anthony Appleyard 06:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)))

Ok, I guess we'll have to go through these one by one. Here's the first batch I have a problem with:

  • "Eosipterus (not identfied)" Then how do you know it was Eosipterus? Any answer other than "they said it in the commentary" or "My name is ___, the creator of the show, and I say it's Eosipterus" is original research and must be removed.
  • format = Documentary I'm sorry, but anyone who can read this article and claim it's a documentary is wrong. The term for a show that is pure fiction but presented in a style mimmicking a documentary is Mockumentary. Read the respective articles on this term.
  • "CB, but disputable because they are very aggressive to each other." Every single item termed CB is disputable. What if one is infertile or sterile? Wha if one dropped dead the minute the credits rolled? Pure original research. Create a fan site for this type of speculation, it does not belong on Wikipedia. ###
  • "However, the animals in the opening credits may be in the park, although it is unconfirmed, if events happened in the park that were not filmed and not mentioned" Events cannot happen in a fictional place. What's shown on the TV show is what happened. Events did not proceed after it ended, or off camera. You could make up literally anything and write that it happened but was not shown. I could write that, in Return of the Jedi, the second the credits rolled Endor may have blown up, though this is unconfirmed. It has no relevance to our real world and so should be removed.
  • " If the ice part refers to the Palaeozoic Gondwanaland ice age, Scotland was a long way from Gondwanaland; if it refers to the Pleistocene ice age, a very big "eventually" should be inserted." This passage is highly POV, and while it's correct, it needs to be re-written to remove bias. Terms like "a very big eventually need to be added" are innapropriate editorializing.
  • "These continuity errors have been noticed:-" Weasel language. Who noticed them? The editor? If so, it's editorializing again. The inclusion of continuity errors is not a bad thing compared to the other problems with the article, but this intro is a problem.
  • "Some say that "the park's jeep's driving seat changes between left hand drive and right hand drive", but some scenes (e.g. Episode 2 (clipping Martha's hair), and a scene in Episode 3) show that the park has at least two jeeps. In Episode 6, some say that "if the Deinosuchus's pond is behind the stockades, then when Matilda chases Nigel, it is not behind the stockades"; but a close look will show that it is behind the stockades." 'Some say' is weasel language again. Who says this? The whole passage sounds like the editor is looking for potential continuity errors he knows to be false, and then refuting them, making the whole passage pointless. If they're not errors, no need to explain them. If people are confused about these things, they may ask about them on the talk page or on a bullitin board devoted to the show. It makes this article sound like a fan site.
  • "This may be because he does not want to change the future." Says who? Original research. Rephrase to "So and so stated, in such and such source, that this is because he does not want to change the future." Anything else is an inference based on unrelated sci-fi stories.
  • "The park's laboratory could presumably grow ice age plants from the samples that Nigel brought back from the ice age in Episode 2." Original research. Either it can or it can't as stated in the show, or no comment should be given here. ###
  • "Nigel has been lucky to be able to name all the prehistoric creatures he has encountered. Fossilisation is rare and most organisms leave no traces when they die, so Nigel could meet many new species that have never been found as fossils and named." First of all, says who? This is a well known generalization I agree with, but it needs a source in the form of a scientific study to back it up, and I know of several scientists who strongly disagree with the idea that the fossil record is extremely poor, such as Denver Fowler. ###
  • "When Nigel grabbed the piece of meat and ran away from the Smilodon, why didn't the Smilodon not chase him? Even if there is a carcass lying around, predators often cannot resist a running target." Why would it? Maybe it wasn't hungry? Maybe it was scared of him? Maybe it caught a whiff of a rival nearby? Maybe a hundred thousand things, all original research. This passage is sneaky in that it implies the Jurassic Park fallacy--that predators are killing machines at all times for all reasons. ###
  • "We never see the snowmobile going through the Time Portal in either direction. It is to be suspected that there was a production difficulty here." Your suspicions do not belong in an encyclopedia. Demonstrate with facts that there was a production difficulty, or leave this out. It is a fact that we never see the snowmobile go in or out, so I left that part to let the reader create their own inferences based on available facts. You should not tell people what to suspect. Maybe I suspect that the snowmobile was magical and teleported itself. My suspicion is equally valid based on available data.
  • "They are likeliest kept in a building, perhaps Nigel's headquarters," Why is this more likely than the idea that there's a 20-acre Microraptor paddock not shown or mentioned? Maybe they all died and it wasn't mntioned. You can't know because they don't exist, so speculation is useless in an encyclopedia. ###
  • "The park's laboratory would likely be eager to examine the coal forest swamp mud brought back stuck to the jeep, and to try to germinate any spores found in it." Says who? Maybe the people working in the lab don't care. Original speculation, not even research. ###
  • "There would have to be some precaution against contaminating the prehistoric times visited by accidentally bringing modern organisms including microorganisms through. And the same in reverse, including with plants. For example, Calamites brought through as spores without anything that naturally fed on it, would likely become invasive in some modern wetlands in the area." Says who? ###
  • "Some would say that it may be that only living things can come though the Time Portal," No they would not, because cars go though. "Perhaps the time portal can be programmed to not let through certain things such as meteorite impact blast and microorganisms." is fanwanking. ###
  • "(However, the tree trunks could be supposed to be referable to Cordaites which is thought to have been a swamp tree)." Original research and/or fanwanking. ###
  • "The DVD of the series contains some storyboard sequences. One shows a different older superseded" 'differnet older superceeded' is grammatically incorrect and redundant. I changed it not because it's wrong but because it's badly written. 'Discarded' is better, if there was an older verison that they did not use, it was "discarded" in favor of the new version.
  • "Lower atmospheric oxygen content in the early Palaeozoic and before may cause Nigel to have hypoxia" It absolutely will not, because Nigel did not really travel through time. ###
  • "Any differing atmospheric pressures would probably create a gale blowing though the time portal." Cite? How do you know the time portal isn't designed to prevent this? Any discussion on the topic is irrelevent when dealing with a fictional, impossible plot device. If gale force winds did not blow through in the show, they could not blow through. ###
  • "The park may start to have an overstocking problem when the Titanosaurs start breeding." Says who? Did you publish a study comparing the expected population density of titanosaurs with the size data for the park? ###
  • "Some say that it was supposed to be the park's security cameras that took some of the shots shown in the series." Who says this?

Dinoguy2 19:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Points

While I agree you make some good points which I will leave unanswered even though I think they just need to be reworded rather than deleted, much of what you have said is unwarranted (and for someone who hates original research you seen to have created a lot of your own). As follows:
  • "CB, but disputable because they are very aggressive to each other." Every single item termed CB is disputable. Pure original research.

Episode three, Nigel said that the Microraptors where the bases of a breeding population at the park. Also we saw the Titanosaurs laying eggs. So we know that they can breed, If you had actually read the article you'd know that. As for the Ornithomimus hatchings, if you look you'd notice that they exhibit sexual dimorphism, male have blue heads and are slightly larger, Some hatchlings are larger than the others despite hatching at the same time. Therefore different genders are implied.

  • What if one is infertile or sterile? What if one dropped dead the minute the credits rolled?

Amazing how you complain of original research while creating your own. Complaining that your opponent is breaking the rules while breaking them yourself suggests that you’re a dishonest debater.

  • Create a fan site for this type of speculation, it does not belong on Wikipedia.

Don't you dare talk down to us like that! Understand.

  • "The park's laboratory could presumably grow ice age plants from the samples that Nigel brought back from the ice age in Episode 2. Original research. Either it can or it can't as stated in the show, or no comment should be given here."

I big deal was made in the episode about the need to collect plant cuttings and cultivate the ice age plants in order to feed the Mammoth, So they clearly can do it (and any second rate Gardner can). Also a comment is needed because it was never mentioned again despite the importance to the story. Pointing out the story left plot lines unanswered is not Original research it’s a statement of fact.

  • First of all, says who? This is a well known generalization I agree with, but it needs a source in the form of a scientific study to back it up, and I know of several scientists who strongly disagree with the idea that the fossil record is extremely poor, such as Denver Fowler.

So you agree with the point but want to make an argument out of it anyway rather than fix it yourself? That’s trollish behaviour. Also mentioning Denver Fowler is an appeal to authority fallacy because if I do provide sources from several other scientists such as Dr. Michael J Benton's book Vertebrate Palaeontology: third edition to support that claim (which it does) that will just leave us in a stalemate and you'll try to win by default.

  • "When Nigel grabbed the piece of meat and ran away from the Smilodon, why didn't the Smilodon not chase him? Even if there is a carcass lying around, predators often cannot resist a running target." This passage is sneaky in that it implies the Jurassic Park fallacy--that predators are killing machines at all times for all reasons.

It chased the Terror Bird away when it stole a lump of meat so it should have chased him away when he did. Pointing out that it acted contradictory to the highly aggressive way it was portrayed on every other occasion, no doubt for the script to work, is not original research its pointing out what was seen.

  • "They are likeliest kept in a building, perhaps Nigel's headquarters," Why is this more likely than the idea that there's a 20-acre Microraptor paddock not shown or mentioned? Maybe they all died and it wasn't mentioned. You can't know because they don't exist, so speculation is useless in an encyclopedia.

It’s more likely because the episode made a point that they needed a roof as they clime in order to fly. Also Nigel's HQ has an Aviary and the Microraptors where actually seen at his HQ. Pointing out that it was stated that they'd need a building and where seen in a building is not speculation.

  • "The park's laboratory would likely be eager to examine the coal forest swamp mud brought back stuck to the jeep, and to try to germinate any spores found in it." Says who? Maybe the people working in the lab don't care. Original speculation, not even research.

In episode five the jeep was covered in plant matter so they did bring some back intentionally or not. In episode one it was pointed out that their mission is to collect extinct species. Episode six made a point that Nigel wanted as many extinct life forms as possible. Episode three makes it clear that they can grow plants. Pointing out that they can, said they would in one case but didn't is not speculation.

  • There would have to be some precaution against contaminating the prehistoric times visited by accidentally bringing modern organisms including microorganisms through. And the same in reverse, including with plants. For example, Calamites brought through as spores without anything that naturally fed on it, would likely become invasive in some modern wetlands in the area." Says who?

The Australian Government for one, just look at their policies and their current Cane Toad problem.

  • "Some would say that it may be that only living things can come though the Time Portal," No they would not, because cars go though. "Perhaps the time portal can be programmed to not let through certain things such as meteorite impact blast and microorganisms." is fanwanking.

No, pointing out that the time portal was inconstant with what it lets in and out over the course of the series is not fanwanking, it’s a valid criticism.

  • (However, the tree trunks could be supposed to be referable to Cordaites which is thought to have been a swamp tree). Original research and/or fanwanking.

Again it’s pointing out a valid error and the only possible solution.

  • "Lower atmospheric oxygen content in the early Palaeozoic and before may cause Nigel to have hypoxia" It absolutely will not, because Nigel did not really travel through time.

Think you’re clever by pointing that blindingly obvious realisation out? And Nigel would have had Hypoxia, the fact that he did not needs to be mentioned as it’s a blatant error or bad acting take your pick.

  • "Any differing atmospheric pressures would probably create a gale blowing though the time portal." Cite? How do you know the time portal isn't designed to prevent this? Any discussion on the topic is irrelevent when dealing with a fictional, impossible plot device. If gale force winds did not blow through in the show, they could not blow through.

So you demand citation while at the same time claiming that any I provide is irrelevant as its fictional? That’s a very slimy way to hedge your bets I must say. And as for your citation I need only point out why space ships and airplane cabins are pressurised and sealed. And the fact that no such gale occurred in episode two and five where it should have must be noted as its an error and the only two solutions, its programmed against such things or its an error on the directors part (which is most likely) also should be mentioned.

  • "The park may start to have an overstocking problem when the Titanosaurs start breeding." Says who?

Says Bob in Episode four when he can't even manage to control the current stock (or did you think they where just allowed to escape?) and in Episode 6 where he claims that they don't have the manpower and that they can barely feed the current population. Nubula 03:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Replies

Replies:

  • "So you agree with the point but want to make an argument out of it anyway rather than fix it yourself?" I did, and it was reverted to the original form.
  • "Pointing out that it acted contradictory to the highly aggressive way it was portrayed on every other occasion, no doubt for the script to work, is not original research its pointing out what was seen." Ok, so phrase it like this, not as a question. Something like, The earlier, highly aggressive behavior of the Smilodon contradicts the way it was portrayed behaving towards Nigel. This conveys the same information in a professional, out-of-universe tone.
  • "It’s more likely because the episode made a point that they needed a roof as they clime in order to fly. Also Nigel's HQ has an Aviary and the Microraptors where actually seen at his HQ. Pointing out that it was stated that they'd need a building and where seen in a building is not speculation. " So if you re-phrase this section to say In the show, it is stated that Microraptor need a roof in order to fly, and an aviary can be seen in Nigel's office. This conveys the same information without editorializing or including original research.
  • "In episode five the jeep was covered in plant matter so they did bring some back intentionally or not. In episode one it was pointed out that their mission is to collect extinct species. Episode six made a point that Nigel wanted as many extinct life forms as possible. Episode three makes it clear that they can grow plants. Pointing out that they can, said they would in one case but didn't is not speculation." Putting two and three together = original research. If it's not clear, in the show, that something happened, it's not the job of an editor to draw these kinds of conclusions.
  • "The Australian Government for one, just look at their policies and their current Cane Toad problem." Is this a plot point in the story? Unfortuanely, the editors here are not writers or producers of the show. While it may be an interesting plot point, it was apparently not one. It's not our job to 'fill out' an incompletely concieved universe.
  • "No, pointing out that the time portal was inconstant with what it lets in and out over the course of the series is not fanwanking, it’s a valid criticism. " I agree completely, but it's not written that way--it's written as an attempt to explain away an inconsistancy. It would be perfectly fine if it said The fictional mechanics of the time portal in the show were inconsistant, as it selectively let cars and people through but not explosions, etc. That points out the inconsistancy as a criticism without adding "though if you imagine this or this, maybe it's not really inconsistant after all. Any time you need to use your imagination to fill in the gaps, you're violating Wikipedia policy. It can be fixed by a simple re-wording.
  • "Again it’s pointing out a valid error and the only possible solution. " No, another possible solution, and one that's far more likely, is that the people who made the show included anarchronistic trees that "looked prehistoric" because they were forced to film it in approximate modern settings. Pointing out that the trees are inexplicably modern should be enough to indicate this.
  • "And Nigel would have had Hypoxia, the fact that he did not needs to be mentioned as it’s a blatant error or bad acting take your pick." Another in-world perspective problem, that you just solved in your explaination. Don't say "Nigel may have gotten hypoxia eventually", say "another reason the show is innaccurate is that Nigel would have gotten hypoxia", and provide a cite discussing different oxygen levels in prehistoric times.
  • "And the fact that no such gale occurred in episode two and five where it should have must be noted as its an error and the only two solutions, its programmed against such things or its an error on the directors part (which is most likely) also should be mentioned." Unless you know how this fictional device works, can it really be called an error, though? If you really ant to keep this in the trivia section, I'd re-word it to something like "Such and such studies suggest that air pressure would be different in the modern world and the prehistoric world the characters travel to, a fact ignored by the producers of the show. It's ignored in many other ways than just the time portal wind thing. Assuming the pressure was sufficiantly differnet, Niel's ears didn't pop or cause him discomfort, he didn't suffer from the bends or other decompression sickness, etc. Rather than go off on a whole list of problems this would create, saying it was ignored sums up the entire issue.
  • "Says Bob in Episode four when he can't even manage to control the current stock (or did you think they where just allowed to escape?) and in Episode 6 where he claims that they don't have the manpower and that they can barely feed the current population." Than it should not say "the park may" have a problem, it should say "the park did have a problem according to Bob in in episode 4 who said "blah blah blah", and in episode 6 when he said "blah blah blah". Perfectly suitable for an encyclopedia. As the tag at the top of the page notes, it's not the content, its the wording that creates an innapropriate tone. Dinoguy2 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

More

You seem to have got it into your head that we had to justify our decisions to prevent you from your overhaul where as in reality your the one who has to justify your changes. On a side note, it would be nice if you admitted your concessions rather than evading or ignoring it. As follows:
  • So you agree with the point but want to make an argument out of it anyway rather than fix it yourself? I did, and it was reverted to the original form.

Then why did you ask us to provide citation rather than ask whether or not you could include your own? Besides the fact that you wanted ammunition for your appeal to authority fallacy.

  • Ok, so phrase it like this, not as a question. Something like, The earlier, highly aggressive behavior of the Smilodon contradicts the way it was portrayed behaving towards Nigel. This conveys the same information in a professional, out-of-universe tone.

Back-pedalling, You have retreated from your original position which was whether it should be included not that it should be reworded. It only takes a second to type "I concede".

  • "It’s more likely because the episode made a point that they needed a roof as they clime in order to fly. Also Nigel's HQ has an Aviary and the Microraptors where actually seen at his HQ. Pointing out that it was stated that they'd need a building and where seen in a building is not speculation. " So if you re-phrase this section to say In the show, it is stated that Microraptor need a roof in order to fly, and an aviary can be seen in Nigel's office. This conveys the same information without editorializing or including original research.

We did say that, therefore it does not need to be changed. Again. You have retreted from your originl position but don't apparently want to, or don't have the corauge to concede the point.

  • "In episode five the jeep was covered in plant matter so they did bring some back intentionally or not. In episode one it was pointed out that their mission is to collect extinct species. Episode six made a point that Nigel wanted as many extinct life forms as possible. Episode three makes it clear that they can grow plants. Pointing out that they can, said they would in one case but didn't is not speculation." Putting two and three together = original research. If it's not clear, in the show, that something happened, it's not the job of an editor to draw these kinds of conclusions.

We did say that, therefore it does not need to be changed. Again, you have retreated from your original position but don't apparently want to, or don't have the courage to concede the point.

  • "The Australian Government for one, just look at their policies and their current Cane Toad problem." Is this a plot point in the story? Unfortuanely, the editors here are not writers or producers of the show. While it may be an interesting plot point, it was apparently not one. It's not our job to 'fill out' an incompletely concieved universe.

YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE SERIES BUT STILL THINK YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OVERHAUL THE ARCTICLE ON IT! Here’s a free tip, don't bluff in a debate and certainly not with me. On a side note it was a point in the show as some animals are flourishing and are on the verge of becoming an pest species(Ornithomimus/Titanosaurs). Episode 3 confirms this, thus the point that they are using precautions against contaminating the outside environment stays.

  • I agree completely, but it's not written that way--it's written as an attempt to explain away an inconsistancy. It would be perfectly fine if it said The fictional mechanics of the time portal in the show were inconsistant, as it selectively let cars and people through but not explosions, etc. That points out the inconsistancy as a criticism without adding "though if you imagine this or this, maybe it's not really inconsistant after all. Any time you need to use your imagination to fill in the gaps, you're violating Wikipedia policy. It can be fixed by a simple re-wording.

Once again you have retreated from your original position but don't apparently want to, or don't have the courage to concede the point. And why do we have to put the word fictional before every statement? We've already stated that the gate is fictional so surly the fact that its mechanics are also fictional is implied. Yes, Yes I know you'll say Fictional works must be marked as such and Out of universe perspectives are needed but all your doing is insulting the readers intelligence and making a character out of the rules you’re trying to uphold (although their not upheld on any of the other pages).

  • "And Nigel would have had Hypoxia, the fact that he did not needs to be mentioned as it’s a blatant error or bad acting take your pick." Another in-world perspective problem, that you just solved in your explaination. Don't say "Nigel may have gotten hypoxia eventually", say "another reason the show is innaccurate is that Nigel would have gotten hypoxia", and provide a cite discussing different oxygen levels in prehistoric times.

Once again your back-pedalling as a rewrite was not your original position.

  • Unless you know how this fictional device works, can it really be called an error, though? If you really ant to keep this in the trivia section, I'd re-word it to something like "Such and such studies suggest that air pressure would be different in the modern world and the prehistoric world the characters travel to, a fact ignored by the producers of the show. It's ignored in many other ways than just the time portal wind thing. Assuming the pressure was sufficiantly differnet, Niel's ears didn't pop or cause him discomfort, he didn't suffer from the bends or other decompression sickness, etc. Rather than go off on a whole list of problems this would create, saying it was ignored sums up the entire issue.

Yes it can be considered an error as the gate creates a gateway between two points that allows things to pass through so it can't be airtight.

  • "Says Bob in Episode four when he can't even manage to control the current stock (or did you think they where just allowed to escape?) and in Episode 6 where he claims that they don't have the manpower and that they can barely feed the current population." Than it should not say "the park may" have a problem, it should say "the park did have a problem according to Bob in in episode 4 who said "blah blah blah", and in episode 6 when he said "blah blah blah". Perfectly suitable for an encyclopedia. As the tag at the top of the page notes, it's not the content, its the wording that creates an innapropriate tone.

Yet another instance where you surrender the point but try to back-peddle. From now post your changes and we’ll decide whether or not to change the article. Shouldn’t be two hard as that is what you claim you want when you’ve all but surrendered your original stance. Nubula 23:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Difference

There's a difference between 'back peddaling' and trying to comprmise. You win--I'm not going to waste any more time trying to improve this article. I've made my suggestions. If you want to make this more professional sounding and more appropriate for an encyclpedia, feel free. If not, it's not worth the effort to correct when the same porblems need qushing in the dinosaur science articles.

Dinoguy2 02:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledgement

Unfortunately you where back-pedalling as you acknowledged my replies, which is why you changed tack from demanding proof to providing suggestions for rewrites, without even admitting I had made a point, that annoyed me. Please give credit where credit is due, especially as I'd given you credit for some arguments as which I admitted right at the beginning, conceded and made no attempt at debating them. Why do you think I asked you not to continue debating but to provide your proposed alterations? Because I expected we would now quit the games and thrash out our differences like adults, one palaeontologist to another but… It's not worth the effort to correct when the same porblems need qushing in the dinosaur science articles. Fine, if you want to play the martyr, a friendless hero who apparently give up his valuable time struggling to bring real science to us heathens feel free. Nubula 03:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


Further continuity errors

I am hesitant to even contribute the following possible continuity error because of the surreal discussion above. As I explained to my 8 year old, it is a Tv show - it doesn't all have to make sense, as the Simpsons doesn't. I think she grasped that concept readily.

I noticed in the Bug house episode that Nigel and team were away for only a night. On the first day Bob was building the bug house and being hassled by a titanosaur. The show implies that the next day the Bug house was up and ready to receive newly delivered animals. Rather than people going into the sorts of really quite disturbing argument WITH BIG LETTERS as above, I'd appreciate if someone watches the episode and see if I got it right. If so, then add it to the front page or, if not, tell me what I missed. Thanking you all for your collective, coherent and proportionate opinions and polite discussion in advance. [[[User:60.242.50.195|60.242.50.195]] 11:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)]

  • Yes, the Bug House was completed far to fast, your right about that. And by the way, for someone who found the argument above disturbing you go to alot of trouble to bring the issue up again even though the matter was closed and has no bearing on this issue, as well as taking a very cheap shot at us in your opening statment. Nubula 14:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pachycrocuta in "A Mammoth Undertaking"?

Where is this name specified? They looked like wolves to me (I suppose they were played by wolf-like dogs), and modern wolves were around 10,000 years ago. Jerkov 23:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There were wolves AND hyenas in the story. Anthony Appleyard 09:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. 61.230.72.194 13:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I only remember wolves, but I'll take your word for it. Still, do we know they're Pachycrocuta for sure? If not, it shouldn't be listed. Jerkov 22:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
They existed at the right time and place (from Africa to Asia)and their is little else they could be. Nubula 13:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i saw a hyena as well, by don't no. User:4444hhhh 09:40, March 10 2007

Public and scientific reception?

The article currently describes the universe of the series very well, but there is very little about its impact on the rest of the world. Would it be possible to add a section about what people (the general public, professional reviewers and scientists) think about the series? Mlewan 18:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeep or jeep?

"Jeep" should only be used when referring to the specific model designed by DaimlerChrysler, and "jeep" should be used when referring to any generic vehicle.--NeilEvans 18:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Episodes

Would it not be more advantagous to put the episodes onto a seperate page? Because this page is very long. Michaelritchie200 07:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

i agree --Melly42 23:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Second Season

I've got more evidence for a new season. The impossible pictures website [1] says the following about Prehistoric Park:

  • In this high adrenaline docu-soap, we follow time-travelling zoologist Nigel Marven as he risks life and limb to capture animals for the ultimate safari park. One where you don't just drive past lions, and get your roof ripped off by monkeys, but where you also get to leer at Tyrannosaurus, feed the Mammoths, and even go for a drive into the future to see where life is headed.

Emphasis on ... go for a drive into the future to see where life is headed. That hasn't happened on any episode to date, so there might be another season where such scenes are included. Comments would be appreciated. Weather or not this is noteworthy to include in the article, decide for yourselves. - 15:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's original research. Jerkov (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

atmospheric pressure differances/ oxygen composition

If the portal was connected to a place at a differant altitude (and therefore differant atmospheric pressure) there might not be a gale blowing through it because it might have a device to resist such forces (which might explain why the meteor blast front didn't come through it).T.Neo 15:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, about oxygen content: the carboniferous insects would not survive in the modern atmosphere because their book lungs could not get enough oxygen but the dinosaurs might survive if they were able to aclimatise to the lower oxygen levels. T.Neo 10:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is why they state in the program that their environment has oxygen levels identical to those that they are used to. MelicansMatkin 15:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Blooper

During the Supercroc episode, when Nigel is running away from Deinosuchus after splashing the water with the oar, he throws the oar away, but it appears to fall through the croc. Anyone can verify this?202.156.10.13 14:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It was probably just CGI problems.Mr A (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Section removal proposition

The section Possible second season seems to be completely OR, and just plain fancrufty. I advocate the removal of this section on the basis WP:OR and WP:NOT. MelicansMatkin 20:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about the supid WP:NOT. Bingodile 10:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
It's Wikipedia policy. MelicansMatkin 14:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
There may possible be a second season. Bingodile 11:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Proof is needed for any such section to be included. See WP:CRYSTAL. MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Names

Can't you just call them by their names in the series like change tyrannosaurus to tyrannosaurus rex, Smilodon to saber toothed cat and meguara to giant dragonfly. Bingodile 10:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Any way, Oi have done that now. Bingodile 11:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Titanosaur

How can you tell if the titanosaurs are Borealosaurus. Bingodile 11:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

They're not. The titanosaurs known from the Yixian formation, where all other animals in that episode are from, have not been given a name. I believe the titanosaurs in the show are based on these. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The article needs a big re-write.

This is one of the longest horribleist terriblest horrid terrible wikipedia articles ever! Why hasnt anyone fixed it up? In fact, you could take the article and turn it into the "prehistoric park book", it almost contains the whole plot. T.Neo (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

OH, sorry, I see that a lot WAS deleted. Good. T.Neo (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. Not deleted. Just moved into their own articles. T.Neo 15:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried cleaning this OR-ridden mess up a few months ago, but there's a pretty dedicated contingent around here that seems to think publishing a PP fan novel on Wikipedia is ok. Good luck... Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh no... T.Neo (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Right everyone. I am going to decimate half of this O.R. ridden mess. Please start a Prehistoric Park fan novel on originalresearchpedia, not here. And, please, no edit wars. Who is with me? T.Neo (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You've got my support. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Great! Anyone else? T.Neo (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wws.jpg

Image:Wws.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Titanosaurus vs Borealsaurus

Jeezum chips, do we have to do this again? The titanosaurs in the show have no name. Know why? They're the Yixian formation titanosaurs, which have not been named yet! They are not Borealsaurus. They are not Titanosaurus. They are "titanosaurs", lower-case, no italics, generic term. This is a perfect example of why all the OR/original speculation in this article is very, very bad--because you are likely to be flat-out wrong. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Original research

I understand that the information seemed good to you, anthonyappleyard, but does it seem good to anyone else? See the comment above. Both Dinoguy and MelicansMatikn have supported getting rid of most of this. Thing is, I actually like a lot of the speculation and OR. But wikipedia is not a place to put speculation and original research. This is NONSENSE! where was there a verifiable source that said "<insert quote here>"? T.Neo (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is my test page for my big OR edits User:T.Neo/Prehistoric park Tell me what you think. T.Neo (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prehistoric_Park/Archive_1&oldid=288176075"