This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Yes, I know we came to an agreement between a few of us on this, and it's still there on this page for now – one of these days it's going to get archived. The thing is, though, Wikipedia's guidelines do say that plot summaries should mention the most notable events in the story. How do you tell what's "notable"? The only way I can think of is if lots of people think it's worth talking about; and the way you tell if lots of people think it's worth talking about is if they edit the article to talk about it. So while I'm fine with the plot summary the way we had it, if it turns out every passerby thinks it's important that the Indominus died on the horns of a Triceratops skull, then maybe that counts as "notable" after all. And it's kind of not in the spirit of Wikipedia to revert changes just because they're changes. — VeryRarelyStable ( talk) 21:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
impaled by a Triceratops skull". Regardless, they are more than welcome to discuss it right here on this talk page, and in fact, I almost always direct them here in my edit summary. Consensus can change, but relentless drive-by editing by IP editors isn't going to cut it. And to answer your question, there isn't a set rule that tells us what the most notable events are. When there are disagreements (and that's often the case with plot summaries), the solution is to hash it out on the talk page. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 01:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
much more coherent now". The issue appeared to be settled. Now it seems you intend to reopen an old wound. It's fine if you've changed your mind, but you need to approach this the right way and obtain consensus through discussion. That has not yet happened.Second, I find it extremely underhanded to state an intention that you're going to avoid poking the fire, but barely a week later, renege and perform actions that are directly at odds with your statement. Aside from the contested material, your actions beg an explanation. And third, why are you still messing with the plot summary? If you were happy with it for the most part many moons ago, why continue to dick with it? Restoring previously agreed upon wording is fine, but what you did here was not only restore contested wording, but you also introduced a version that no editor (anonymous or not) has even tried: "
killed on the brow horns of a Triceratops fossil skull". -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 05:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
killed on the brow horns of a Triceratops fossil skull". If you look back through the history, you will find that an IP two edits previous changed
causing it to fall through a glass roof to its death.
leading it to fall through a glass roof and impaled on the brow horns of a Triceratops fossil skull.
leading it to fall through a glass roof and killed
on the brow horns of a Triceratops fossil skull.
beto make the sentence grammatical ("to... be killed"), and remove the line break, so that the clause now reads
leading it to fall through a glass roof and be killed on the brow horns of a Triceratops fossil skull.
For anyone who is interested, I have highlighted several issues with the plot (mostly minor) and have proposed an improved version.
The changes would look like this. In this version, I have also removed a few words that seemed unnecessary, and took out a few unnecessary wiki links. AJFU ( talk) 19:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@ GoneIn60: Not to be rude, but your latest reversion to the plot synopsis is bordering on WP:OWN. As one of the parties to the previous agreement referenced in your edit summary, I never felt it was a final version to be enshrined for ever. If other people think they can improve it, they should come along and improve it. Granted, not all of the changes were improvements, but I felt some of them were, particularly the one where the dinosaur relocation was consolidated into a single paragraph and the "unknown purpose" vagueness removed.
What really made it feel WP:OWN, though, was your phrase "the same reoccurring editors keep coming back". For one thing, it overstates the case; multiple editors have contributed. The fact that they (for example) keep putting the Triceratops skull back in doesn't mean they're the same people, it means that's an element a lot of people feel is significant. But even more than that, you're one of the reoccurring editors who comes back. You're not some kind of official custodian of the article. You're an editor like the rest of us.
Reaching a consensus and sticking to it to resolve a live dispute is a good thing to do. Enforcing that consensus on the article for ever afterwards, when people come along with ideas who had nothing to do with the dispute, is a bad thing to do.
Wikipedia articles change over time. That's what Wikipedia is. Make peace with it.
— VeryRarelyStable 22:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
not all of the changes were improvements" statement a few steps further: very few were improvements. Others were either unhelpful or unnecessary. I restored the ones that I felt were definitely improvements. Any editor that thinks more needs to be restored is welcome to discuss here on the talk page. As I've done in the past at this article and countless others, I'm always willing to discuss opportunities for improving the article, because like you, I think there's always room for improvement. But changes like this and this are not helpful and would definitely need further discussion, especially the recent addition about the post-credits scene.So let's focus on content here, if there are further matters to discuss. Regarding the "dinosaur relocation" consolidation and the removal of "unknown purpose", I do agree with those and missed that in my assessment. I'll restore those now. If there are more, let's bring them to the table. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 04:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
VeryRarelyStable: Continuing the good faith effort to hear and understand your concerns, do you have any remaining objections you'd like to hash out? Obviously, we're not going to agree on everything, but it would be best to address outstanding items now rather than wait for them to boil over later. I don't want to misinterpret your silence as agreement. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 06:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
...if someone makes a poorly worded change introducing new content to an article, you should try if possible to preserve the new content while fixing the wording, rather than simply reverting the change"
wallyfromdilbert: Let's hash out the issue here. Each element of the statement appears to be supported by the source. While I'm indifferent on whether or not we have summary statements in the lead, I'm 100% opposed to quoting RT's summary in the lead. I'd rather not have a summary statement at all. The Hollywood Reporter source is being legitimately summarized and there's precedent in past discussions for relying on sources like it in these situations. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 06:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Often, editors have a hard time verifying the poster billing. Didn't see that it was brought up on the talk page before, so here's a decent example – a promo poster with the billing listed:
If someone knows of a better version, feel free to post it. I know there's a higher resolution copy out there somewhere, but I can't seem to find it at the moment. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 04:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Preemptively posting here that the budget has increased thanks to the latest UK Gov tax release. I added the numbers in that document to the numbers Caroline Reid provided in previous tax releases. This falls under WP:CALC. poketape ( talk) 05:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC) Spinosaurus x T-Rex Hybrid
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Yes, I know we came to an agreement between a few of us on this, and it's still there on this page for now – one of these days it's going to get archived. The thing is, though, Wikipedia's guidelines do say that plot summaries should mention the most notable events in the story. How do you tell what's "notable"? The only way I can think of is if lots of people think it's worth talking about; and the way you tell if lots of people think it's worth talking about is if they edit the article to talk about it. So while I'm fine with the plot summary the way we had it, if it turns out every passerby thinks it's important that the Indominus died on the horns of a Triceratops skull, then maybe that counts as "notable" after all. And it's kind of not in the spirit of Wikipedia to revert changes just because they're changes. — VeryRarelyStable ( talk) 21:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
impaled by a Triceratops skull". Regardless, they are more than welcome to discuss it right here on this talk page, and in fact, I almost always direct them here in my edit summary. Consensus can change, but relentless drive-by editing by IP editors isn't going to cut it. And to answer your question, there isn't a set rule that tells us what the most notable events are. When there are disagreements (and that's often the case with plot summaries), the solution is to hash it out on the talk page. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 01:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
much more coherent now". The issue appeared to be settled. Now it seems you intend to reopen an old wound. It's fine if you've changed your mind, but you need to approach this the right way and obtain consensus through discussion. That has not yet happened.Second, I find it extremely underhanded to state an intention that you're going to avoid poking the fire, but barely a week later, renege and perform actions that are directly at odds with your statement. Aside from the contested material, your actions beg an explanation. And third, why are you still messing with the plot summary? If you were happy with it for the most part many moons ago, why continue to dick with it? Restoring previously agreed upon wording is fine, but what you did here was not only restore contested wording, but you also introduced a version that no editor (anonymous or not) has even tried: "
killed on the brow horns of a Triceratops fossil skull". -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 05:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
killed on the brow horns of a Triceratops fossil skull". If you look back through the history, you will find that an IP two edits previous changed
causing it to fall through a glass roof to its death.
leading it to fall through a glass roof and impaled on the brow horns of a Triceratops fossil skull.
leading it to fall through a glass roof and killed
on the brow horns of a Triceratops fossil skull.
beto make the sentence grammatical ("to... be killed"), and remove the line break, so that the clause now reads
leading it to fall through a glass roof and be killed on the brow horns of a Triceratops fossil skull.
For anyone who is interested, I have highlighted several issues with the plot (mostly minor) and have proposed an improved version.
The changes would look like this. In this version, I have also removed a few words that seemed unnecessary, and took out a few unnecessary wiki links. AJFU ( talk) 19:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@ GoneIn60: Not to be rude, but your latest reversion to the plot synopsis is bordering on WP:OWN. As one of the parties to the previous agreement referenced in your edit summary, I never felt it was a final version to be enshrined for ever. If other people think they can improve it, they should come along and improve it. Granted, not all of the changes were improvements, but I felt some of them were, particularly the one where the dinosaur relocation was consolidated into a single paragraph and the "unknown purpose" vagueness removed.
What really made it feel WP:OWN, though, was your phrase "the same reoccurring editors keep coming back". For one thing, it overstates the case; multiple editors have contributed. The fact that they (for example) keep putting the Triceratops skull back in doesn't mean they're the same people, it means that's an element a lot of people feel is significant. But even more than that, you're one of the reoccurring editors who comes back. You're not some kind of official custodian of the article. You're an editor like the rest of us.
Reaching a consensus and sticking to it to resolve a live dispute is a good thing to do. Enforcing that consensus on the article for ever afterwards, when people come along with ideas who had nothing to do with the dispute, is a bad thing to do.
Wikipedia articles change over time. That's what Wikipedia is. Make peace with it.
— VeryRarelyStable 22:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
not all of the changes were improvements" statement a few steps further: very few were improvements. Others were either unhelpful or unnecessary. I restored the ones that I felt were definitely improvements. Any editor that thinks more needs to be restored is welcome to discuss here on the talk page. As I've done in the past at this article and countless others, I'm always willing to discuss opportunities for improving the article, because like you, I think there's always room for improvement. But changes like this and this are not helpful and would definitely need further discussion, especially the recent addition about the post-credits scene.So let's focus on content here, if there are further matters to discuss. Regarding the "dinosaur relocation" consolidation and the removal of "unknown purpose", I do agree with those and missed that in my assessment. I'll restore those now. If there are more, let's bring them to the table. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 04:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
VeryRarelyStable: Continuing the good faith effort to hear and understand your concerns, do you have any remaining objections you'd like to hash out? Obviously, we're not going to agree on everything, but it would be best to address outstanding items now rather than wait for them to boil over later. I don't want to misinterpret your silence as agreement. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 06:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
...if someone makes a poorly worded change introducing new content to an article, you should try if possible to preserve the new content while fixing the wording, rather than simply reverting the change"
wallyfromdilbert: Let's hash out the issue here. Each element of the statement appears to be supported by the source. While I'm indifferent on whether or not we have summary statements in the lead, I'm 100% opposed to quoting RT's summary in the lead. I'd rather not have a summary statement at all. The Hollywood Reporter source is being legitimately summarized and there's precedent in past discussions for relying on sources like it in these situations. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 06:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Often, editors have a hard time verifying the poster billing. Didn't see that it was brought up on the talk page before, so here's a decent example – a promo poster with the billing listed:
If someone knows of a better version, feel free to post it. I know there's a higher resolution copy out there somewhere, but I can't seem to find it at the moment. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 04:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Preemptively posting here that the budget has increased thanks to the latest UK Gov tax release. I added the numbers in that document to the numbers Caroline Reid provided in previous tax releases. This falls under WP:CALC. poketape ( talk) 05:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC) Spinosaurus x T-Rex Hybrid