Talk:Jurassic World Dominion/Archive 1

fix title to remove colon
The title for Jurassic World Dominion seemingly does not have a colon in it, the Prologue uploaded by Universal has no colon in the title. It seems the title is a combination of "Jurassic World" and "World Dominion" so there is no colon. Larkkyy (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that, but a plethora of reliable sources still include the colon, so I'm not entirely convinced. The official Universal Pictures website as well as the most recent poster still list the film with the colon, so I think it's better to wait before starting an RM discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: Actually, the poster for the prologue excludes the colon. What are other editors' thoughts on this? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It looks like media outlets which have official partnerships with Universal (i.e. with "exclusive" content from the film) are referring to the film without the colon:, ,. Are any editors opposed to moving this article to ? InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLDly moved, as no one has replied. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Summary statement in the lead
The film's overall reception should take mixed/average reviews into account, not just negative, so changing Metacritic's "unfavorable" wording to "negative" seems misleading in some ways. I recommend stating "not well received" (as used here) or simply "unfavorable" instead (as used here). Both phrases simply mean "not positive", which better encapsulates both mixed and negative. Anyone opposed to this change? --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Rotten Tomatoes says anything less than 60% is negative and they gave this film 38% and Metacritic also gave it 38% which it called "generally unfavorable". Some editors have in the past have strongly insisted on keeping the word "generally" because for them implies that not all the reviews were negative and some that mixed or positive reviews also exist, but "generally" the reviews were negative, so I think GoneIn60's concerns about encapsulating the existence of mixed reviews is already covered. At the moment the lead section says generally unfavorable, that seems entirely appropriate based on what the two aggregators are saying. (Either way I still want to see this though, just I might wait a little longer before I do.) -- 109.76.194.186 (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Rotten Tomatoes says anything less than 60% is negative" Can you provide a link to where RT states this? I'm not seeing "negative" mentioned anywhere on this page. I am also fine with "unfavorable" though, so we may be making a moot point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I oppose changing the wording because there is nothing wrong with it. "Generally negative reviews" is standard wording on film articles, and is synonymous with "generally unfavorable reviews". Variety also describes Dominion reviews as "negative", which is perfectly neutral and factually accurate. "Mixed", on the other hand, is inaccurate and should not be used. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I will also add that the leads of BvS and ZSJL are worded like this so as to avoid legions of Snyder diehards from repeatedly edit-warring. Not sure about Terminator 5 (we don't talk about that film), but I don't see this as an issue here either. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I don't think "generally negative" is a bad way of describing things. I just think '"generally unfavorable", and especially "not well received", are superior for the reasons stated. The Variety source is helpful to look at, but it does somewhat contradict itself when it states, "...Dominion is being met with a mixed response." --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally negative reviews. Generally. This does not imply unanimity. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 60% or higher positive, 59% or lower is negative. "where RT states this?" Exactly there on on that page where they explain what they mean by Fresh (positive) and Rotten (negative). Do you disagree that Rotten Tomatoes uses the words Fresh and Rotten as site specific synonyms for Positive and Negative? I do not think the difference between "generally unfavorable" and "generally negative" is significant. I think we are broadly in agreement and only different in a by a few degrees. -- 109.76.194.186 (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * After giving it more thought, I concede. There's not enough here to warrant a change, especially given MC's score. Any difference is small and not worth nitpicking over. For future reference, however, RT does look at mixed reviews and then decides if it's "mixed-positive" or "mixed-negative", which of course determines if it's placed in Fresh or Rotten territory. Discovered that info here. So there is a range of mixed to consider in addition to just positive and negative. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll back up GoneIn60 to say that that there is a grey area of mixed, as well as positive and negative. I don't know where the line is, but I do know that RT's pronouncement of "rotten" vs. "fresh" shouldn't be the be-all end-all of what is negative vs. mixed. For me personally, it would make sense that a 34% or less would be proof of dominant negativity, however I also agree that a low MT score is more convincing evidence that something is perceived negatively as opposed to mixed. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Malta
Malta is mentioned ss a country but it's an island 79.97.171.149 (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Lots of islands are also countries, including Malta. TNstingray (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Typo in Box Office Part
You have a typo. It says audience exist score in Reception-Box Office, not audience exit scores — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.145.170 (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * . InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2022
65.32.236.76 (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC) I want to edit this article please.
 * 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2022
Replace the poster with the Jurassic dominion poster with the title included in the poster 2600:6C44:7800:22FF:2D80:FEB4:C471:23E8 (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The U.S. posters do not include the film's logo, and neither do the trailers. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Jurassic World Dominion poster
I am suggesting dad the current poster of Jurassic World dominion to be replaced with the same poster but with the title of the movie HenryLaszewski (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Already requested above. The U.S. posters do not include the film's logo. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved   -- Vaulter  02:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Jurassic World Dominion → Jurassic World: Dominion – The : is correct and is used in the article&#32;2603:9000:CA02:CACC:98DA:A5B9:A53F:D548 (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Kj cheetham (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not objecting myself, but was moved the other way last year (Talk:Jurassic_World_Dominion), so needs a full RM. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose The film's title has no colon, and the article should not have been changed. This has now been reverted. The billing block indicates there is no colon, as do a plethora of reliable sources: Variety, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, The New York Times, The Washington Post, TheWrap, BBC News, The Guardian, IGN, /Film, Empire, Entertainment Weekly, CNET, Rolling Stone, Digital Spy, Total Film, Forbes, etc. A film title without a colon is also not all that uncommon, e.g. Alien Resurrection, The Matrix Reloaded, and Terminator Genisys. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The film's director, Colin Trevorrow, talks about asking the film company NOT to have a colon in the film's title and how happy he was when they acceded to his request; it's in the Film Stories podcast here: https://www.filmstories.co.uk/podcast/podcast-jurassic-world-dominion-with-director-colin-trevorrow/ 2A02:C7F:2CD9:B900:CC9F:BA90:F43:7D66 (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Much like the very silly 2013 Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy, the title has no colon. It is supposed to mean "World Dominion", while also combining the Jurassic World series title. Keep it as is.  conman33  (. . .talk)  22:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – per sources provided by InfiniteNexus. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Even though the colon would make sense, I've only seen articles without the colon. User:Saimcheeda (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - per sources. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per InfiniteNexus and the fact that the official website doesn't even use a colon. cookie monster   755  02:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – As of now, Google and IMDb still spell it with a colon, but it seems they are outliers. &mdash;Will(B) 02:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a controversial matter. That's for sure. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither of those are reliable sources, and it is to be expected that certain websites will make such a mistake. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I just submitted correction requests to both websites. (And in my rationale, I copy-and-pasted a quote from you, InfiniteNexus! Thanks!) &mdash;Will(B) 03:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:IMBD. cookie monster   755  18:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The studio has gone out of its way to make sure publications do not include the colon. This is likely so the films of the trilogy appear in alphabetical order in the catalogue. TropicAces (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not? It makes sense. --Inaturlist Lover (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read the nomination again. This is not the correct title of the film. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The correct title does not have a colon. This isn't even a new format for the franchise. A person in Georgia (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per above. The title with a colon is simply wrong. Glades12 (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. I've seen several pages with the title. The title is perfect as it is and doesn't need a colon.Ulises1126 (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Name for the movie
They movie name should be stylized as "Jurassic World: Dominion" 45.43.105.153 (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't. There is no colon in the title, nor is it stylized like that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Then why is the title styled with a colon in the first sentence and in the infobox? Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I took care of it. Iamnoahflores (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Cast order
With tickets now on sale, it is entirely possible that no billing block will be released. The only "official" cast order we have right now is the one on their website, which corroborates the alphabetical order previously seen on the teaser poster. Is anyone opposed to using that order for the infobox and Cast section? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Amblin website has a different billing block, which I always assumed to be the official order as it lines up with the previous films, giving top billing to Pratt and Howard. AJFU  (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I was gonna say "let's go with that", but then it looks like the Universal website has another different order. Things are getting real complicated here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Both the Amblin and Universal websites have the five main stars listed first, although the order of Goldblum and Neill is swapped depending on which site you look at.
 * After the main stars, the Amblin billing block lists everyone else alphabetically, while the Universal website seems to be going by screen time.
 * All three websites say Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard are joined by Oscar-winner Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum and Sam Neill, and that's the same order used on the Universal billing block, so maybe just go with Universal for the whole cast. AJFU  (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I support going with the Universal order for now. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it's still a little early to tell. So, hopefully we'll see the next poster with a billing block before the movie comes out. Sometimes they come late. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's going to be another poster. Like I said, tickets are already on sale. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

A version of the payoff poster with a billing block is up on Rotten Tomatoes. That billing block corresponds with the current order, but cuts off after Omar Sy, so I'll update the page accordingly. Someone might also want to upload that new version to the poster file. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Note: sub-discussion moved to its own section below. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, I think it should have somewhat in credit order, not in poster order because it's stupid to have some important cast members to be on Additionally list (Sermon, Scott, Smith, Pineda and such), which, to me, feels like an insult since Scott portrayed a main antagonist on it and Sermon probably had a huge screen time. Also, for the Additionally part, it should only have "Kristoffer Polaha, Varada Sethu, and Dimitri Thivaios" only, along with any other minor cast members that are notable enough to be on it. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The billing isn't about screentime/importance, it's about $$$. Superman (1978 film) is probably the most famous example of this (Christopher Reeve is listed third), or you could look at Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker in which Carrie Fisher received top billing due to her passing. At least in the articles that I usually edit, the cast order tends to follow the billing block, and the "Additionally" paragraph is anyone in the end credits not in the billing block. That being said, the main-on-end titles almost always mirror the billing block word-for-word, so I'm equally mystified why this isn't the case here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That format in the cast section you made is not a good one and I'm not pleased with it. Many film articles never used billing boards to take lead and used end credits and such, while adding Additionally to characters that are just as important in the film (like Sermon, Scott and such). That format is uncalled for. If you want the Additionally list, then use the ones like "Kristoffer Polaha, Varada Sethu, and Dimitri Thivaios", along with anyone else that are minor because that fits better in the cast section then what you're doing. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, since you didn't respond to my last comment for five days I assumed you were fine with going with the billing block. I see now that is not the case, so if you'd like I can restore the previous order per WP:STATUSQUO. Anyway, as I wrote earlier, billing in films are not necessarily based on their importance to the plot, so using the billing block on the poster to order the cast seems perfectly acceptable to me. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I already did reverted to status quo. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I weighed in below. I think the poster with the billing block should be uploaded to overwrite the one we have now.
 * To clarify, the reason for this is that the cast order in the lead section usually matches what's in the infobox. Per Template:Infobox film, "Starring" should generally follow the billing block, unless local consensus determines that there's a better source for cast order. The Cast section doesn't necessarily have to follow the lead, but again, a reasonable explanation should be given for not doing so. Past discussions have suggested looking for cast members listed on screen in the opening or closing credits prior to the film's title being displayed. That's another good option when editors disagree about using the billing. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you be fine if we followed the billing block order for the lead and infobox, and then the main-on-end titles for the Cast section? InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Like which ones will be on the cast list and Additionally part? BattleshipMan (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Those credited in the main-on-end titles go in the bulleted list. The rest who are not go in the "Additionally" paragraph. Infobox and lead follow the billing block order, per Template:Infobox film. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess it works, depends if I like it or not. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Maisie's age
I distinctly remember Maisie Lockwood being mentioned as being 14 in the movie, but the cast bio says she's 13. I could be wrong, but it needs to be checked.90.253.40.132 (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I recall hearing 14 in the film as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

who made this identification?
" ... encounters with a Therizinosaurus and a Pyroraptor " <-- no reference given 50.111.18.139 (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Poster
A version of the poster with a billing block is generally preferred over a poster without one. If quality is your only concern, the image I linked above (pulled from Rotten Tomatoes) has a sharper image quality that more closely matches the original one, so perhaps we could use that one instead? InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, a recent discussion about posters (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 79) said versions with billing blocks are not preferred if the original doesn't have it because of the low resolution. A person in Georgia (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoa, hold up. The opinions of two editors do not translate to policy or consensus. And there is reason to use a version with a billing block here, because as you can see from this thread we are ordering the cast per the billing block. The fact that the title has no colon is also most strongly supported by the billing block. The absence of one could cause confusion among editors when they come across the hidden comments in reference to the "billing on the theatrical release poster". InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please participate in the discussion here, we don't want any more edit warring. Please respond. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with InfiniteNexus. In cases like this where discussions over cast ordering or whether a film needs a colon (similar situation happened with Pacific Rim: Uprising, a poster with a billing block does help. Iamnoahflores (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Slightly off-topic, but the billing block for Pacific Rim Uprising actually indicates it does not have a colon. I think I'll start an RM about this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And there is reason to use a version with a billing block here, because as you can see from this thread we are ordering the cast per the billing block. That doesn't matter. Use the poster being used in theaters and maintain the cast listing from any promotional material. A person in Georgia (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is zero benefit in using a poster without a billing block. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is zero benefit in referring to it when you can't even read it because of the low res. A person in Georgia (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Granted (no pun intended), but readers can click on the "source" link in the fair use rationale box to see a high-res version of the image. That link has to match the image represented, which is why they both have to change. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't have to / change is not needed. Examples from last year include Godzilla vs. Kong and Candyman. They don't need a change. Just add a hidden note with a link to a version of the poster w/ billing block. If constant changing/vandalism is an issue, get an extended page protection policy so IPs don't change it. A person in Georgia (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you think it's fine to have a link in the fair use rationale box to an image that does not match the actual image displayed? Also, thus far you have not said what harm there is to include a poster with a billing block. (P.S., for Godzilla 3, the cast order is literally at the top of the poster, so the absence of a billing block is fine in this case.) is not a helpful or plausible suggestion per WP:PREEMPTIVE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. A person in Georgia (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Still not happy with the current poster, but I've added in the link on the file page for now. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see this discussion. believes that it is OK to link to a version of the poster with a billing block even if the image does not have one, which is why I did that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please explain more when writing edit summaries next time (you can link to this discussion for other editors to understand for example). Other than that, we shouldn't/mustn't show a "source" that is different from the file. I couldn't find an official source that uses the poster with the billing and bad saturation as theatrical release poster anywhere, but found other multiple reliable sources that show posters without billing that are being used in cinemas right now. Additionally, the version A person in Georgia insists on doesn't even match with the source he wants to add. Without reasonable explanations and reliable references, the poster should not be changed and further situations like this should be avoided. Do not change the source before/until you change the file. It's that simple. ภץאคгöร 20:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, my opinion is that we should be using a version of the poster with a billing block to support the fact that the film title does not include a colon (originally, it was also used to order the cast listing, but this is currently under discussion in the section above). Rotten Tomatoes (an "official source") has a version of that poster that is of a higher quality than the one previously uploaded to File:JurassicWorldDominion_Poster.jpeg, and I proposed using that image instead. A person in Georgia disagreed, stating that we could just link to a version of the poster with a billing block without actually changing it, hence I made that change. I will also note that I did state Please participate in the talk page discussion on the article's talk page. when I reverted your file upload a few days ago, so I assumed everyone was aware of this thread. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, this discussion is not at the bottom of the page, so it is not easy to find. Nobody is obligated to search for it, so if you want to help/encourage others to join the discussion, you need to link exactly where the discussion is. Second, Rotten Tomatoes is not exactly an official source and "a version of that poster" is NOT the same that you insist on using/that was uploaded before, making the arguments and reverts pointless. The main issue to be discussed is whether it is more appropriate to use a theatrical poster, which is the current revision, or the official version of the poster with billing. There are always exceptions, issues like this where disagreements can happen. In addition, please make sure to upload the photo from the source that you have shown and that you want to use. ภץאคгöร 11:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt it is appropriate to upload any new file versions while this discussion is ongoing, hence the reverts to the WP:STATUSQUO. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Nobody is obligated to search for it" And no one is obligated to hold your hand or be expected to read your mind to know that you're having trouble locating the discussion. If you know you were referred to the talk page discussion but have trouble finding it (for some odd reason), then speak up and ask, or simply begin a new discussion. Don't continue to discuss in edit summaries, as that's the least effective way to resolve disputes. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would personally agree with Georgia, since ordering the cast by the billing is easily verifiable, and doesn't need to be on the page itself. I'll go with the consensus but that's my take. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, ordering the cast by the billing is not easily verifiable. Try searching for "Jurassic World Dominion poster" or "Jurassic World Dominion billing block" on Google Images. It is not easy to find the film's billing block online. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I found it in about 30 seconds. But the billing is the same as the cast we're using, so I'll stick with my vote. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 30 seconds?! I scrolled here for about five minutes straight and couldn't find a single billing block other than several fan-made posters (with incorrect billing blocks) ... InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh look, someone just started an RM discussion to move this page to Jurassic World: Dominion. See why we need a poster with a billing block? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please participate in the discussion here. I have once again restored the WP:STATUSQUO of the file page (and will try to request for protection again, as it was rejected last time). InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to revive this discussion since there's been new activity. By raw votes, we are now tied with 3 editors in favor of using a poster without the billing block and 3 editors in favor of using a poster with one (me, ). I have repeatedly explained how a billing block is necessary to support the film's title and possibly the cast order, but the only rebuttal given by the other side is that it is "unnecessary". Is there any other reason why using a poster with a billing block is harmful to readers? If so, please list them here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Readers can't read or see the billing block on the low-res poster. Just link to it on the image's file. A person in Georgia (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think Nyxaros agrees with you on that. They wrote above, . InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not? Just link both Original poster; Version with billing block A person in Georgia (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean link the separate version, where do we put the link in the article? Iamnoahflores (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe Georgia is referring to the fair use rationale box on the file page. Now we're just waiting for Nyxaros to respond. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't think it's right to put a different link. Even if it's the same design, the billing block makes a significant difference. Iamnoahflores (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just like we don't cite "sources" that differ from text when writing articles, we don't put another link to be like "oh, hey, look reader, you are gonna definitely want to see this, this is not related to the file at all, but it is a poster of the film and looks similar to this file". That's not what "source" means. Template:Non-free use rationale poster states "If not from the website, specifically where and how did you get the image?" So let's continue to choose the logic and decide which poster to use, if possible, with rational discussion. Adding one more link to show another image is not exactly helpful. ภץאคгöร 06:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support replacing – Template:Infobox film does not require a specific version of the poster, so in cases where there are multiple versions, it's usually preferred to stick with the status quo unless there is a compelling reason to replace it. With that said, makes a good point that in addition to the cast order (which usually goes by the official billing block), there is also the concern about the non-existent colon in the title, which appears in some sources. So here, a reasonable case can be made that a change is warranted. The new poster will satisfy both concerns, acting as an additional pathway of verification. So what if we can't read the text in the Wikipedia low-res version? The updated image will have a source description that links directly to the higher resolution image. The argument to keep is weaker than the argument to replace. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * GoneIn60 brings up a good point in the discussion above. Template:Infobox film advises using the billing block to order the cast in the infobox. How do you think uninformed readers will respond when they see a hidden comment that says  when the poster displayed on the page has no billing block? Or likewise,  ? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is a good point. I change sides and support the one with billing. A person in Georgia (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus has been reached on which file version to use. Could you unprotect File:JurassicWorldDominion Poster.jpeg so we can implement the agreed changes? Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've unprotected the file. Katietalk 19:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I found 2 slight variations with the billing block:
 * First has release date
 * Second has release date AND title/logo
 * Should we use either one of these? Iamnoahflores (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither of those have good quality, and I'm not sure they're official/legitimate. For now, I think it's safest to use the one from Rotten Tomatoes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually the first one matches other Universal billing block posters, like The Mummy (2017) and Halloween Kills (2021). I think if we get one with both a billing block and release date, it's a double deal. Iamnoahflores (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address the quality issue, and if I may, could you provide links to where you got those images? InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean quality? That first one was full HD. I found them after searching deep into Google Images. A quick reverse image search shows copies (for some reason only via incognito mode, regular mode does the inferior Google Lens). Iamnoahflores (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The color is a bit different than the official one. A person in Georgia (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, same deal with The Mummy and Halloween Kills, its a Universal thing. Still official. Iamnoahflores (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's from some random website online, it's not guaranteed to be official. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Predator (2018) poster isn't even on IMP Awards yet we still have it as it's official, but okay fine. Iamnoahflores (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, like they said, that doesn't make it official. I don't get why you reverted my edit to the Halloween Kills poster, since I fixed the coloring and kept the Peacock logo you said was "crucial" (... so I hope you revert that too). A person in Georgia (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Frankly just to match it with a billing block like the first film does. Iamnoahflores (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * that's not necessary tho. A person in Georgia (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Matching when it comes to a franchise or series is common. That's why The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014) poster just has the one character to match the previous posters, instead of the main poster with all the characters. Iamnoahflores (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Has this practice been discussed? The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug has the poster with all the characters so I don't get this reasoning either. A person in Georgia (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Somebody must've changed it since last time. It was a different one before. Iamnoahflores (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Was there a consensus to make them match? A person in Georgia (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * While working on another article, I happened to stumble upon Universal's extremely well-hidden press site. The page for Jurassic World Dominion has both versions of the payoff poster (with and without the billing block), so that should clear any doubts about whether this is official. I also checked the Halloween Kills page out of curiosity, and if you scroll to the bottom you can find a version of the poster with a billing block, with unaltered coloring. Cheers! InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The lede of the article
We should discuss what to put on the lede part of the article about which certain aspects of the movie that are praised and criticized. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , you did not revert back to the status quo in this edit. That's actually what I did, reverting back to the version that existed as far back as June 20th (as shown here). That's the version that should be in place while discussion is underway. As for the suggested edit that recently cropped up, we can only summarize what has been summarized for us. We cannot look at individual reviews and make that summary on our own. So the old version that was in place simply regurgitated what Rotten Tomatoes has provided. If you have other sources to look at, feel free to share. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)