Talk:Prehistoric Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Terence & Matilda (the T.rexes) breeding?

  • It may be possible, but inadvisable, as it would cause inbreeding. Anthony Appleyard 13:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't suggest it. Also, the amount they fight I don't think it would be possible anyway. Good show though! Michaelritchie200 19:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Inadvisable as they're brother and sister. Although they'd probably be willing to pair up once Matilda came into season Michael.O'SullivanLim

[edit] 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)

[edit] Episode 5 points

  • The points are both easy to shrug off. The dinosaurs undoubtedly had tough skin, more like that of reptiles so it was likely the tranquiliser worked like that. Michaelritchie200 17:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The darts used likeliest had strong enough propulsor and long enough needles to get through big dinosaurs' skin. Anthony Appleyard 06:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Points

  • And we don't see the jeep driving through the forest this time - it crashes as soon as it arrives. Michaelritchie200 17:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That is likely why: the producers knew that people who know about diesel engines would raise queries if a diesel jeep was seen driving about unaffected in an atmosphere with twice as much % oxygen as it was designed for. Anthony Appleyard 06:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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)

  • Leave "mammoth". It is much better known than "Mammuthus".
  • With unchanged plurals, beware of ambiguity between singular and plural. That is why nouns have plurals. Anthony Appleyard 09:27, 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
  • Ditto. Please can we settle this dispute quietly? Anthony Appleyard 23:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/e/Talk%7EPrehistoric_Park_6b05.html"