Talk:Jurassic Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments


Contents

[edit] 'Jurassic Park series' box

I want to make some suggestions about the 'Jurassic Park series' box which lays currently at the bottom of this article. Now, while this article refers to the JP novel, the box only includes a list of the articles related to the films. I'd suggest changing the name of the 'Parts:' list heading to 'Films:', and adding a second list, headed 'Novels:' or something like that, with links to the Jurassic Park and The Lost World articles related to the novels (this new list may be preferably presented before the one about the films, considering how the novels are the basis of the franchise). Also, I think the 'Various:' list of links could be better presented...

(I couldn't do any of these changes right now because I don't know how to edit that kind of box...) [Edit:Now I know how to edit the template, but I still don't want to do so without knowing if people will agree or if it will fit Wikipedia standards better after the changes] --gonzy 23:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Half of the items under "trivia" are clearly relating to the film and not the book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.172.153 (talk • contribs) .
I moved some to Jurassic Park (film). Garion96 (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Jurassicpark.jpg

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

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

If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on the relevence of Mbz1's image of insects in amber

User:Mbz1 claims this image is relevent to the article since the story refers to a mosquito in amber. However, I and it appears User:Mgiganteus1 too, believe that the image is inappropriate for the article as it is only vaguely demonstrative of the concept in the story and not actually directly relevent to the story, particularly in its current state where it doesn't explain its relevence in the caption which says, "A mosquito and a fly in Baltic amber necklace are between 40 and 60 million years old." - as such it only mentions details relevent to the image itself, not its relevence to the article (of which there is little).

I'd like to form some sort of consensus about this as Mbz1 is continually reverting my removal of the image from the article. As a background to this issue, the image was originally submitted by Mbz1 to Wikipedia:Featured Picture Candidates where I believe Mbz1 has quite a history of being argumentative and stubborn refusal to see the logic of some of the opposition to their FP candidates and this is again being seen here. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I second Diliff's sentiments - it's an image of an amber necklace! It simply doesn't belong. Unquestionably this image has little or no relevance to the article; but in fairness to Mbz1 I think a shot like this Image:Ant in amber close up.jpg (but obviously with a mosquito rather than an ant!) with the main focus clearly being the mosquito containing amber (rather than jewellery) could be useful in the article. --Fir0002 07:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your suggeestion to an extent - it would have to have a good caption explaining that this isn't actually THE mosquito in the amber from Jurassic Park (obvious perhaps but still necessary), and is merely indicative of the concept. As it is, the image/caption are quite irrelevent and misleading. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course you agree. I've never doubt that users Diliff and user fir0002 are agree in everything. I believe I'd rather to hear from viewers and readers of the article, not from wikipedia editors, but I doubt I will because very few readers are going to the discussion page. Yet I believe the readers had their say, by not removing the image from the article. I'll try to take a better picture of mosquito only and let fir0002 to write the caption as he wishes. I hope it could be satisfactory for all involved. I also like to offer to you to include a template of the image relevance, which will direct readres to the talk page, in the article. I would have done it myself, but I do not know how. --Mbz1 13:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
The image has been changed for this one . This is my last comment for this discussion. You could do with the image as you wish(please, if you could, try avoid comments on its quality simly because it is not FP nomination). I'm not going to restore , if it is removed from the article once again. I've done what I could to show the Wikipedia readers how a mosquito in an amber could have looked like. Now it is up to you to prevent Wikipedia viewers and readers from seeing it or to let the image stay in the article.--Mbz1 15:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

[edit] Should we mention Carnosaur?

Carnosaur (novel) was written 6 years prior to Jurassic Park, and contains many details which seem to have been completely plagiarised by Crighton. Should a section on possible plagiarism be added?Dark hyena 16:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

it depends--if the author of Carnosaur charged plagerism, it's possible that a statement saying that the author of carnosaur charged plagerism is relevant (citation definitely needed to prevent exposure to libel lawsuit), or maybe if there is a credible source charging plagerism (e.g. a respected well-edited national newspaper or magazine--just a blog or homepage coul contain lots of good info, but still it could be made up and a better reference would be needed in that case.).--Todd 18:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did find this...

We chat briefly for a while about the enigma within a mystery that is Peter Roberts, and the unlikelihood of John ever getting anywhere with a possible suit against Jurassic Park for plagiarism of Carnosaur—apparently if he could afford to research and bring the case he’d be so rich already it wouldn’t be worth the bother... http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:4kCGrXosSY0J:www.gostak.org.uk/island/conv.htm+and+the+unlikelihood+of+John+ever+getting+anywhere+with+a+possible+suit+against+Jurassic+Park+for+plagiarism+of+Carnosaur%E2%80%94apparently+if+he+could+afford&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

Harry Adam Knight fears that people will think the Gollancz reissue of his Carnosaur is naughtily based on Jurassic Park, since both have similar scenes involving Mongol hordes -- sorry -- dinosaurs even though the HAK book predated Michael Crichton's novel Jurassic Park by 6 years. John Brosnan, possibly our greatest living expert on Knight, loves the sequence in Spielberg's movie where a charging dinosaur crashes into a display of a fossilized dinosaur skeleton ... which by pure coincidence (his phrase) resembles a scene found in Carnosaur but not, oddly enough, in the Crichton novel. http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:QdgqoXgAV4AJ:news.ansible.co.uk/a73.html+Harry+Adam+Knight+fears+that+people+will+think+the+Gollancz+reissue+of+his+Carnosaur+is+naughtily+based+on+Jurassic+Park&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1 Dark hyena 13:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COI discussion concerning Jurassic Park Legacy

I have opened a request on WP:COIN concerning the external links to Jurassic Park Legacy and the contributor Tyrannosaur. All contributors to the articles in question are welcome to comment. --Dinoguy1000 20:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] differences between book and film

should we have a section detailing the differences between the novel and the film? The lost world novel page already has one such list.--68.150.17.145 (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I just wanted to point out that when people type in "Jurassic Park", most people have not even heard of the novel or the fact that it was a based on a novel. This isn't meant to be demeaning in any way, it just that the film is more notable and I think it should redirect to the film rather than the book. JTBX (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm definitely against it. Films shouldn't take prominence over a book: there will be only one book, but possibly many film adaptations (as much as I hate to say it, Jurassic Park may get remade one day). Alientraveller (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Alientraveller. Naming the movie article Jurassic Park, and the novel article Jurassic Park (novel), implies that the movie is superiour over the novel. This is no fair because the movie is based on it. Furthermore, I don't believe that the user-friendliness is harmed a lot here. The first sentence of the article clearly states: "For the feature film based on this book, see Jurassic Park (film)." It's just one extra click. Cheers, Face 17:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Invalid" Cautionary Tale

I think the line "(it is worth noting, however, that the cautionary message of the book is invalidated by the fact that similar animal attacks could occur in any similar facility housing dangerous animals, even if those animals were naturally occuring, as was the case with the San Francisco Zoo tiger attacks)." should be removed or amended. It is very poorly worded as it seems to imply that since Tigers have attacked people at a zoo in real life the "cautionary tale" of the story is actually "invalidated." Unless someone can cite some scientist that states this I would say that remark is highly inaccurate and should be removed. HotOne121 (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Would the fact that other animals escape VALIDATE the message that you can't have perfect control? Megaduck, 09:28, 9 June 2008 (EST)