Talk:Jurassic Park (film)/Archive 2

Dinosaur names
It was wrong to put the italics back. This article uses dinosaur names as common names. The Wikiproject Dinosaurs is very clear about it. These are not real dinosaurs, anyhow. The only place where the genus/species nomenclature is called for is in the part where it discusses parallels between the screen monsters and real dinosaurs. I wish you had asked about this before undoing all my work. I intend to put it back right if I feel up to it. It too often happens that when I come in and copyedit I find somebody squatting on the article like a badger, and I get bit, and I'm getting a little sick of it. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)-Milkbreath (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, don't be own-ish. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it." (FYI, to the best of my knowledge I have never edited or even seen this article before, so I personally am certainly not "squatting on the article like a badger".)
 * WikiProject_Dinosaurs: "When a species is mentioned (on its own page or another), the scientific binomial name should at least be mentioned once. After this, the genus name or common name can be used....Do not use common names too much, they look amateuristic. If you use them, realise that you are referring to the genus, or to an order ending on -ia." -- IMHO, this is not "very" clear regarding the names of fictionalized dinosaurs. And even if the dinosaurs here are fictionalized, the scientific names are real. (In other words, I'm not sure that you're right, and I'm not sure that you're wrong.)
 * -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no common names for Mesozoic dinosaurs, and it would look incorrect and unprofessional to "invent" them by using lowercase generic names. The only time this is appropriate is when you use, say "tyrannosaur", not "tyrannosaurus". But even then, the term tyrannosaur needs to have enough context so that you know you're talking about Tyrannosaurus and not any generic tyrannosaurid. The WP:Dino quote above is referring to common names like tyrannosaur, btw, not to misspellings like tyrannosaurus. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Gossip
"Stan Winston joined together with IBM and director James Cameron to form Digital Domain, saying, "If I didn't get involved, I was going to become the dinosaur."[84]"

Please remove gossip from the article. It is promotional language and provides no insights. Arebenti (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It provides insight in the fact that Winston joined Cameron to form the company Digital Domain because he was inspired by the cgi of this movie. This is not a gossip, but a fact. The quote might be a bit off the mark here however. It seems to describe Winston's enthusiasm about his involvement with the film, instead of his enthusiasm about the new technology. Perhaps we should use this: "I realized in the middle of Jurassic Park that we have this wonderful new tool [in computer graphics]." - Face 18:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, changed it, but didn't used the quote. I'm not completely satisfied with it though, because I think it might lean to overrating. The bit might make you think that Digital Domain was formed because of Jurassic Park, which is not what the articles says. It only states that Winston was inspired to join it because of the film. Also, the Digital Domain article on WP says that Cameron asked Winston to join him, and that the original idea was created by ex-Lucasfilm employee Scott Ross. - Face 07:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe we should follow Arebenti's advice after all, and remove the whole thing. Not because the information is speculation or advertising, but because it is misleading. Cheers, Face 08:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Someone wrote "Matt Preston storming out of radioshack after getting written up for something stupid." beneath the picture of the T-Rex breaking out of the pen. I'm changing it right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.135.153.228 (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. User 99.146.218.22 was already warned four times for vandalism on April 15. I will not report him/her for this edit, but if he/she causes more trouble, I will seek action. Cheers, Face 07:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Goofs
I haven't put anything into the topic yet because I'm not certain if mentioning filming errors in the movie is appropriate... namely when Dennis Nedry crashes his Jeep, he points to the East Dock sign, where the arrow points straight ahead; after he falls down the hill, the arrow is then inexplicably pointing left instead.

Just thought I'd mention it in case anyone was curious. WhiteCrane (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice one, but I don't think it would fit anywhere in the article. IMDb is the place to look for goofs; see here for the page about Jurassic Park. Your goof is already on it (search for "East Dock sign"), and it isn't the only error in the movie it seems. Cheers, Face 11:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Diff between movie and novel
We should have a part here where it has the differences between the movie and the novel. Its completely different Pirakafreak24  ( Leave a Message ) I can sing! Ha!. 04:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article? Alientraveller (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Raptors
The raptor part of the article haves a lot of "it was later discover a similar dinosaur", but actually, the raptors in the jurassic park film are fiction creatures. All of the known dinosaurs of that species it said (by experts) to had feathers. We should change it —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrMGinius (talk • contribs)
 * And how did anyone know if therapods had feathers during the early 1990s? Alientraveller (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a factual error, but it wasn't known in the 1990s, so it isn't actually an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk • contribs) You are competlety wrong. No one could of known about fethers in the the period 1990-1995.81.20.187.182 (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus: Character?
The Tyrannosaurus is a character, and is the films primary antagonist... quite a bit could be written about it, enough to make a substantial article. Is this possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk • contribs)
 * Not really. Alientraveller (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He is more of a monster than anything else.Efaki07 (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Efaki07 (talk) 12:08, 30, June 2010 19:19 (EST)

"Differences from Novel" section needs rewrite
The section listed below, the "Differences from novel" section, was just removed because it's poorly written and gives much too much emphasis on minor plot differences. Spelling isn't great either. This section, as currently written, does not meet the requirements to be within an FA, so I've removed it to be rewritten here. Personally, I don't think this section should be in the article, period, because a large enough plot difference should be mentioned in the prose, but I'll let the community decide that. Anyway, below is the secion. Please rework and rewrite before placing it back in the article. A discussion on the merits of it even being there is necessary before re-inclusion, I would say.  upstate NYer  03:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I was surprised to find it in a featured article. I thought that lists of miscellaneous information are discouraged. -- 4.249.84.125 (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Differences From Novel
The original novel contains many differences from the movie which are both major and minor to the plot.
 * In the beginning of the novel, an injured worker is brought to a hospital after being attacked by presumably a Velociraptor, and late vomits and dies. It can be assumed he is the equivilent ot the character 'Jophrey', who was instead killed on the island by a Velociraptor.
 * In the movie, the tour uses Ford Explorers whereas in the book, the cars are electric Toyota Land Cruisers.
 * The movie roles for Dr. Henry Wu and Gerry Harding have been stripped down to mere cameos, whereas in the novel both characters had extended roles. Also, Wu is killed in the novel.
 * In the novel Lewis Dodgson was working for a company called BioSyn. In the movie, the company Dodgson worked for was never clarified, but many fans have assumed it is also BioSyn.
 * In the movie, Hammond survives, whereas in the novel, Hammond sprains his ankle and is killed by a pack of Procompsognathus.
 * In the novel, the Costa Rica military destroyes most of Isla Nublar believing it to be a military installation. This does not happen in the movie.
 * in the movie it is Ellie who turns the main power back on with help from Hammond but in the book Tim is the one who switches the park to main power from the computers in the control room
 * The roles of Lex and Tim have mostly been switched around for the movie. Lex is the computer geek, and Tim is the younger child.
 * In the book, a character named Ed Regis is present. In the movie, he is not present, and several of his traits were passed on to Donald Gennaro, including the scene where he left the kids in the car when the Rex broke free.
 * the ability for the dinosaurs to breed is explained by Grant to be due to amphibian DNA used to complete the dinosaur DNA but is never checked where in the book Dr. Wu confirms that Grant may be right since they did use amphibian DNA (Grant explains that amphibians had the ability to change sex so as to mate with other amphibians)
 * Donald Gennaro survives in the book, but his killed in the movie.
 * In the novel, Gennaro, Grant, Muldoon, and Sattler explore an underground raptor nest before leaving the island. In the book this does not happen.
 * In the novel, Muldoon survives his encounter with the raptors by shoving himself up a nearbye pipe after killing several raptors, while in the movie Muldoon is quickly killed by the lead raptor, right after muttering his famous quote, "Clever Girl..."

There, I tried to clean up most of it, and took out some crap, replacing it with more useful inofrmation. I didn't do all of it, but thats because I'm not sure how to reword some of it. 68.248.234.79 (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC) (Clonehunter - Can't sign in, thought I had account, name stolen?)

article cleanup
I don't want to continue just deleting stuff at this point but this article is one big copy paste from some other sources. It's way too big and basically tells the entire story in the article.

The IMDB profile of this "movie" surely can't be this big and it all serves very little encylopedic reference. This is an article about a fictional movie and should serve the purpose of saying a little about the movie. Unless there are objections i'll go back to cleaning some out. No real reason for multi paragraphs for sections, who's going to read it all.Woods01 (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sequels
Maybe I am blind, but I can't find any reference to the sequels in this article, and a disambiguation tag would be nice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.29.140 (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article
A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Velociraptors were smaller
Velociraptors pictured in the film are probably much larger than they really where. In reality velociraptors reached only 60 cm (2 ft.) height while in movie they are as tall as an adult man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.84.243 (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't news to anyone, it's one of the most commonly stated issues with Jurassic Park — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.159.8 (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

THRILLER
I know that recently a famous wikipedian cocksucker removed thriller from the JP cats, I'm re-adding it, as I have source that Jurassic Park is a thriller. Also note that the novel is widely considered a thriller novel. 201.13.196.230 (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus roar
The roar of the tyrannosaurus in jurassic park has been used many times, like the dragon in What's new Scooby Doo? and a remote-controlled tyrannosaurus from the Natural History Museum.Could this be made into an article like the Wilhelm Scream?Streona (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
Removed a ton of references to Max Katulsky. Sorry about losing any subsequent edits. Robinsenior (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about FAC criteria
I kind of feel like this article is lacking in many areas, and with regards to the featured article criteria, specifically that it "...neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" and that it is "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". There's very little in the way of contemporary critical reception, getting only a bare paragraph (and I only see four reviews). Likewise, for the groundbreaking special effects and the fact that a good-sized book was written about the production (in addition to large articles in journals like Cinefex, Cinefantastique and American Cinematographer) the production section is woefully underdeveloped. I'm not saying the level of detail must be exhaustive, shot by shot—but it should be something more than what it is now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I was concerned that the awards section is terribly formatted (should be in a table) and had not one source to back any of it up.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarify roar effects
"Its roar is a baby elephant mixed with a tiger and an alligator". This needs clarification, please. A baby elephant doing what? A tiger doing what? An alligator doing what? The source is inaccessible to me at the moment, and I'm curious about it. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 04:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Although i can guess what the elephant and tiger were doing, i am curious about how they got a 'roar' from a alligator.Meatsgains (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Missing bit from plot
Maybe it was removed on purpose, but I think it should also be mentioned that - while Hammond observes his guests on monitors - everybody (after the exploration) try to leave the island in time before the storm arises, whilst Ellie stays on the area because she wants to take care for the sick Triceratops. Remember that the article does mention the sick Triceratops far below, whereas the animal is nowhere mentioned in the text of the plot. (As I'm not that good at wording this best, I'll gladly leave it to you guys.) -andy 77.190.41.69 (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * agreed, this is a pretty big part of the film because this is the reason she was not with the group when they were attacked by the t-rex. Meatsgains (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright i added the part with the triceratops, any comments or suggestions??Meatsgains (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Certificate ?
I came here to see what rating this film has, as I'm thinking about getting it for my 6 year old son for Christmas. A bit disappointed that there is no information about that on this page, I would have thought it was fairly basic. I'm not often let down by Wikipedia. Maybe I'll try & add it myself at some point ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.254.42 (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia quite often doesn't have film ratings listed, because they vary widely from country to country. A specific film-related site like IMDb would be more likely to have that information. Grutness...wha?  09:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Frank Welker?
It says that Triceratops and Gallimimus are voiced by Frank Welker. That's the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever heard. I definitely don't remember any of the dinosaurs talking! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"He called me David"
There's a great quote I read at one time, which sadly doesn't seem to be online anywhere, where Sam Neill said the biggest compliment he'd ever been paid while making a movie was during Jurassic Park, when at one point during production Sir Richard Attenborough accidentally called him "David" (a reference, of course, to the similarity between Neill's character in the film and Richard's brother, Sir David Attenborough). Does anyone know where that quote may have come from, and - if it can be verified - does it belong in this article somewhere? Grutness...wha?  09:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

FARC?
It may be time for this article to undergo Featured Article re-assessment. I gave it a quick once-over and there seems to be several problems that, were it getting its first FA review today, would keep it from becoming FA: These concerns need to be addressed. I'll give it a reasonable amount of time and then call for a FA reassessment. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The plot summary has redundant wording and run-on sentences. Some are easy fixes but other require more fine-tuning. Examples:
 * 2) *"Sattler restarts the park's systems, but is attacked by a raptor but escapes the raptor." — repetitive use of "but" and "raptor"
 * 3) *"Muldoon is killed by a raptor, before Tim, Lex and Grant climb an electrified fence out of the park's animal zone and Tim is nearly killed when the fence is reactivated." — run-on sentence
 * 4) The "Production" section is a mass of 6 rather long paragraphs. It should be broken up into subsections for readability, such as Writing, Casting, Filming, Special effects, etc. See MOS:FILM. There seems to be sufficient material about each topic to warrant subsections.
 * 5) There is absolutely no background information about the cast and crew, as required by WP:FILMCAST. All there is is a cast list with a brief description of each role. Nothing about the casting process itself, why these actors were selected, how they prepared for the roles, etc. The casting process is not even mentioned in the Production section, nor are any of the cast members.
 * 6) The "Home media" section carries a maintenance tag for not citing any sources.
 * 7) "Awards and nominations" should be a subsection of Reception (easy fix).
 * 8) The date formats in the citations are inconsistent. Some use YYYY-MM-DD format, others use "Month Day, Year" format.
 * 9) Other than the film poster in the infobox, it has no images or other media of any kind as called for by WP:FACR no. 3. When it was originally promoted 5½ years ago it had 5 or 6 illustrative images, which I'm guessing were removed because they were non-free. While the amount of non-free content should of course be kept to a reasonable minimum, certainly 1 or 2 images to illustrated the special effects and CGI uses in this film would pass the criteria. The dinosaur effects, both practical and CGI, are probably the most notable feature of this film, and there's certainly enough sourced commentary about them to warrant a couple of demonstrative images. Other than that, free images could be used to dress up the article, such as photos of the lead actors, the locations used for filming, or freely-licensed scientific illustrations of the most prominent dinosaur species.
 * 10) There is a link to Jurassic Park (film score) slapped almost randomly onto the bottom of the Production section. That's not how summary style is supposed to look. The score article is pretty minimal beyond a long, unnecessary list of the "Original Cue Listing" and should probably be merged into the film article.
 * It's a shame but yes it isn't FA material, there are tags, unsourced areas, dead links, it needs some TLC. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

An important reference missing
I believe there's an important reference missing. The article has placed "Shay, Duncan, p.###" in short citation as references more than 30 places in the article, but the reference section doesn't elaborate further who she was. According to WP:Citing sources, short citation must be used in conjunction with general citation. Like,

Reference
1. Shay, Duncan, p.###

2. Shay, Duncan, p.###

3. Shay, Duncan, p.###

Bibliography
 * Shay, Duncan (1990). "Jurassic Park", Entertainment Monthly, 51(78)

or something like that. There's supposed to be at least ONE general reference to tell us what the book actually is, if we're going to mention "Shay, Duncan, p.###" like that. I can't see where "Shay, Duncan" listed anywhere else. Her name alone and page numbers mean nothing. You can't find a book out of that. Can anyone in the team who has created this article provide the missing reference? Anthonydraco (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Added from the history. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Where did you get it, though? I thought of that too, but I didn't know what period to search. O.O Anthonydraco (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * From when it was promoted to FA (accessible through the link in the history box above). I expected that such an error would not have been missed by the reviewers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Go motion & Effects
The section in this article states that no Go motion sequences made it into the final cut. However, the source given isn't accessible to me. Can someone confirm this? I only ask because the Go motion page specifically contradicts this by stating Go Motion was used in the film. From memory, I think this article is correct, and the Go motion one is wrong, but I just want to be sure. Also, do you think it would be worth separating out all of the effects stuff into a separate production section? It'd make traversing it easier, as it's currently spread across production. This system is already in place at The Matrix article, which was similarly trend-setting and bar-lifting in effects. drewmunn talk 17:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge soundtrack?
This soundtrack should be merged. Information is not cited, and I don't think reviews and charts could suffice this soundtrack's notability and strengthen the soundtrack page. --George Ho (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think a merge would be a good plan, but certainly some information could be moved over to this article. Most other similar articles are soundtrack-centric, rather than score-centric, so that might be the way to go. If so, much of the production could be split onto this page. drewmunn talk 18:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As one of the users trying to help fix up this article, I also don't think a merge is not really a good idea. We should incorporate production information for the score into the section itself. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, bit confused; is that double negative meant to be there? drewmunn talk 19:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that we could add the film scoring information from other sources like journals, magazines and newspapers, as well as John Williams's interviews. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree the daughter article is just a bit too long to include here in its entirety, thus I oppose a merge as such and support a potted summary. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The film score article isn't really that long; it's just got some short development sections and then the track listing, which can easily be collapsed. While I'm sure there's more information out there irt Williams' score, what's in the daughter article right now is next to nothing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

speculative fiction
Does this movie meet the criteria for a science fiction movie being within the umbrella of speculative fiction? Taeyebaar (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Entirely possibly. The book from which the film is based certainly does, especially with the introduction and other details it goes into, and I don't see why the film should be different. drewmunn talk 22:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned in the article? Because according to sources, the story is not just about the fictional science in it, but also poses philosophical questions, which is what the movie, and book as you state, is about. Also according to the article on speculative fiction implies the genres is about judging imaginary scenarios. Speculative fiction includes works of science fiction such as JP. Taeyebaar (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It's long established as primarily science fiction. It should not be changed. Taeyebaar changed the genre to over a dozen articles last month (including this one) without discussion, which I had to revert. I'm glad to see he opened a discussion here first this time, but I'm not inclined to go along with this. We could go on and on breaking films and novels into subgenres, but that is not our purpose here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Lord of the flies, which you reverted is established within the scope of speculative fiction, as are especially sci-fi, do not remove sourced material again. See wp:vandlism Taeyebaar (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You have no cause to be talking about vandalism by others. You have been reverted by two editors at Lord of the Flies. You made a vague, unsubstantiated charge of something underhanded about this in your edit summary. You have been given a WP:3RR warning for that article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Box Office Worldwide
Did Jurassic Park have a foreign opening that pushed it into 17th place, taking Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone place? Because if it is, it might reach a billion dollars worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.38.25.223 (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Billion dollar question
Why do they send reports that Jurassic Park has reached $1 billion worldwide? They haven't reached it yet. And they are releasing the 3D film of it in Mexico, Spain, and different locations right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.126.208 (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Make this article a Good Article again?
Now that it is a Former Featured Article, perhaps this article must be a Good Article again. If not possible, how do we fix this article? --George Ho (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Gross in infobox
The gross in the infobox does not match the source, not even close. The infobox should contain the gross for the film's initial box office release, not subsequent rereleases, etc. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  14:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone with knowledge of the novel please fix the section about differences between the novel and the movie?
The english in this section is/was nearly incomprehensible. I tried to fix it up as best I could, but not having read the novel, sections of this paragraph are beyond my deciphering skills. Can someone with knowledge of the novel fix the remainder of this section so as to ungibberish it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.32.254 (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a crack after breakfast. drewmunn talk 09:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

✅ drewmunn talk 13:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggested correction
I was adding content to the Jurassic Park (film) and every time I finished, it would glitch out, causing the page to erase the new content. Jason749 (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Jurassic Park (film). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/1995/05/10/1995-05-10_ratings___jurassic__parks_nb.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).


 * http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/1995/05/10/1995-05-10_ratings___jurassic__parks_nb.html

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Bot merely removed dead link template, without adding or changing anything else. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Jurassic Park (film). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/1995/05/10/1995-05-10_ratings___jurassic__parks_nb.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Bot merely removed dead link template, without improving the citation. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Legos
Should this article include the recent Lego merchandise? This would likely be under the Sequels and Merchandise section. For example, the Lego Jurassic World video game, and the Jurassic Park Lego sets might be something worth mentioning there, since we already have other merchandise listed. That is the Wikipedia page for the game itself. 66.68.90.160 (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Matteo James

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jurassic Park (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101103053831/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_5_19/ai_97874292/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_5_19/ai_97874292

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jurassic Park (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121054959/http://www.sigchi.org/chi95/proceedings/papers/bk_bdy.htm to http://www.sigchi.org/chi95/proceedings/papers/bk_bdy.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Jurassic Park 3D.jpg
File:Jurassic Park 3D.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 non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Jurassic Park 25th Anniversary Collection.jpg
File:Jurassic Park 25th Anniversary Collection.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 non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Potential piece to use
I came across this 25th anniversary piece earlier today discussing the movie's use of technology. It could be useful for discussing its impact. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Jurassic Park Museo nazionale del cinema.jpeg

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. Science Fiction is stuff like Star Wars and Star Trek.Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can&#39;t make it back into bread. (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Science fiction and Harry Potter would disagree with you. FunkMonk (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

well, that's the definition that movie fans use. Again, Harry Potter isn't fantasy just because magic is involved. It has to be in a medieval setting. Excalibur, for instance. And science fiction needs to have space ships and time travel. Like Star Trek, for example. Calling Jurassic Park science fiction is like calling Thunderbirds science fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spottedfeather (talk • contribs) 04:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your insistence on defining science fiction as only being futurism and fantasy as being restricted to Medieval Europe is WP:Original Research, to say nothing of how your definitions of science fiction and fantasy are contradicted by the primary sources. That, and you have not explained how your own personal opinions officially override the declarations of the creators of those various franchises, either.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Spottedfeather, that's an utterly ridiculous and restrictive definition of science fiction. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of films, books and examples of science fiction that don't involve spacecraft or time travel.  How about Westworld - another of Crichton's books?  Do you not consider that to be science fiction?  Bear in mind (as pointed out above) everybody else does consider it to be science fiction.
 * And as an aside, I'm curious as to why you consider Harry Potter not to be Fantasy, but Lord of the Rings is Fantasy. What's the difference between the two?  Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * They seem to be confusing fantasy with the more specific epic fantasy. FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Or possibly High fantasy... DonIago (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is also the consistency factor within Wikipedia, as both the novel and the franchise are labeled as science fiction. This film does seem to fall within the Google definition of science fiction as being "based on imagined future scientific or technological advances", which mirrors the OED somewhat (the OED leaves out "future", which allows JP even more fully under that tent, since its events aren't explicited posited as being future ones) and other standard dictionary definitions. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Why is this text in the category "Cultural depictions of mathematicians"?
I thought it would be for filmes focusing on mathematical figures, like "A beautiful Mind". What do you think, can I remove it from this category?

PS: I am quite new to Wikipedia, in fact I joined today, so help me if I do something wrong :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFibonacciEffect (talk • contribs) 17:05, April 21, 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! That's a good question about the category. It looks like it is because Ian Malcolm is a mathematician (in addition to being a chaos theorist), according to the plot summary. Since chaos theory is a branch of mathematics, it seems like the category is technically suitable, though you and I couldn't tell right away. If this article had covered chaos theory as portrayed in the film (and Malcolm's framing of it), then it would be verifiable per WP:CATVER.
 * Searching for outside coverage, this says, "Chaos theory rose to prominence as a branch of mathematics in the late 80s; Malcolm is a compound figure inspired by the chaos theorists Ivar Ekeland, Heinz-Otto Peitgen and James Gleick, whose Chaos: Making a New Science had appeared in 1987, three years before Crichton’s novel." That would be something to include in the article to satisfy WP:CATVER. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right, the film does appear on the List_of_films_about_mathematicians, in the category "Films featuring Mathematicians" and since there is no such category the category Cultural depictions of mathematicians fits best. The list is by the way more extensive than the Category:Films about mathematics so I will go and extend that.

--TheFibonacciEffect (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Billy Joel as Dennis Nedry?
I can't edit from where I am, but I'm pretty sure Billy Joel did not play Dennis Nedry (check the cast section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.243.125.253 (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2021
Hi, this request is just to add Universal Pictures as the production company of the film. Jurassic Park was co-produced by Amblin and Universal, and distributed by Universal. The Globe Company served both as producer and film distibutor. Thanks. 92.184.117.155 (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ― Blaze The WolfTalk<sub title="Discord Username" style="position:relative;right:22q">Blaze Wolf#0001 16:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Archive links
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Archiving_a_source This is a link to the policy on adding archives, since I'm being reverted. The editor asked me where it's encouraged. It's here, where it says, "Editors are encouraged to add a archive link to each new citation." Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's when the citation is created, one at a time, and doesn't imply massive bot runs that only add to clutter and don't facilitate the creation of the actual archives, which is done according to the original link being placed. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was going to start a new discussion after you reverted my edit, but I see that you did the same thing a year ago. I don't understand why you would call archive links, they are future-proof and highly beneficial as a preventative measure to avoid WP:LINKROT. In fact, WP:ARCHIVEEARLY states, There's a reason why the parameter url-status exists, and adding in archives does no harm to the article. While not an official requirement, I've seen many GA and FA reviewers ask for all sources to be archived, so this is clearly good practice. This is literally the first time I've seen opposition to adding archived URLs. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've never seen reviewers ask for links to be archived. Usually there's too much else of concern, but it could happen; and if it does, a review is apt to be a place where those links are checked for relevancy. Did you check each of the 120 links you added for such correctness. I wouldn't have reverted if there hadn't been so many, with so much extra markup added, which adds to download time and to the time it takes to set up the data structure that must be constantly scanned for mouseover events. My initial objection was to the visual clutter they add when editing in raw mode. The bot, when it runs itself, only adds links when it determines that the original has died. I think that that's a better indication of what good practice should be. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We're supposed to accommodate readers, not accomodate ourselves. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How are you accommodating readers by adding to their download and rendering times, without any certain increase in substantiating the text? Dhtwiki (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Page size is far more impacted by other factors than archive links. Bots running archive tasks after links go dead are prone to errors and it may not be possible to fully recover the information; being proactive is good practice (especially since the vast majority of links will absolutely go dead even in the shorter timeframe.) That it makes things for you less convenient is not really a valid reason to revert someone's edits. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a response? Because we now have at least three editors supporting this change. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Samurai Kung fu Cowboy quotes a policy that says: "Editors are encouraged to add a archive link to each new citation." That indicates one-at-a-time creation by editors creating the original citations when they are *new*, and, hopefully, reviewing the archive snapshot. It doesn't mention bot runs across *old* citations at all.

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talks of "other factors" impacting size more. However, 21k is considerable, especially if it isn't justified. Bots are running archive tasks *at the archive site* *before the links go dead*, in any case. All you're adding is the link; you're not causing the archiving to take place. And, my convenience isn't to be considered representative of others', even though page clutter isn't my only concern?

You talk of "future-proof", which I think isn't necessarily so. There could be take-downs by copyright holders, or the archive site itself could go dead. If that doesn't happen, the links should be there for your use when links do die. That is, after you, preferably, investigate the source for continued relevancy or look for a better original link, which are often to be found when, say, websites are merely reorganized. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I still don't get why this is the hill you're fighting on: a potential 4% boost in total HTML page size. Either way, if you really want to start an RfC about this, you're welcome to do so. Otherwise, I recommend not reverting someone the next time they try and archive the page's references. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 03:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fighting on this "hill" because I'm seeing something that degrades articles without there being justification for doing so, and I'm not seeing my understanding of guidelines or my assumptions about article degradation being refuted. You "recommend" that I generally not revert as I've done here? On what basis? I often do not revert, when the links amount to only a small addition, but do that for reasons of practicality (e.g. avoiding contentious argument over really small matters), not because smaller additions are essentially more justified. How are you arriving at a figure of a 4% increase in HTML page size? The only way I get close to 21k being only a 4% increase is dividing that figure by 540k, which is my measure of the article's total HTML size, which supposes that 21k is representative of the HTML it generates, which strikes me as unlikely. As far as an RfC, I've thought of it, at least to clarify the wording of the guidelines being referred to. However, discussions that I've had at, say, the bot operators' noticeboard, tell me that there may be little support, as too many people want to think that they're helping by running IABot this way. However, if the three of you are adamant, I'm willing to have the archive links added back, which can still be done, by undoing my edit, the last I checked, without conceding that that is in any way helpful, except to put this matter to rest. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you don't want to start an RFC because you think you're in the minority? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not so much a minority, but not part of an overwhelming consensus that sees things as I do. Before I'd start an RfC, I'd start a discussion to see what support there is, at, say, Village Pump (Policy). In previous discussions I've had, esp. on, say, the bot noticeboards, there hasn't been an overwhelming support for change, but the bot operators themselves (mostly?) seem to be in agreement with my stance, which is why I'm fairly confident of it. An actual RfC, if I'm not sure of support, would be a waste of time. On the other hand, does there need to be a change in the guidelines? As I've tried to explain, there isn't any guideline that supports these massive bot runs, just a misreading of those already in place, which might stand some clarification. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth I still think adding archives is preferable. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 05:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)