Talk:Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom

Ongoing changes to the plot summary

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)

Just so it's clear, a lot of the changes I reverted were done on the basis that they weren't improvements and added unnecessary fluff to the article. Part of the reason was also because many of these were shot down in what I still consider to be a recent discussion. Also realize that while it may appear that these are different editors, there's no guarantee that's the case. I find it more than coincidental that they almost always phrase it along the lines of "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)

@GoneIn60: Reiterating what I said in the paragraph above. I think you're the only one reverting this particular change any more (and this latest one lasted for nearly two months before you spotted it). I'd want stronger evidence that these are the same person than that they use similar wording to describe the same event. I think it's more likely that lots of people think the Triceratops skull is notable, what with it being the climactic event of the film and all. I'm not going to revert your reverts myself but I'm not reverting the mention of the skull either. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

VeryRarelyStable: So recently you stated you're not going to remove these extraneous details about the skull, and in the same breath claimed you wouldn't block their removal either. But here you are, in this edit, about a week after they were removed putting them back in. So much for staying neutral and not balking. First, I want to remind you that there were two discussions where the skull was mentioned: 1) the archived discussion at What does and what does not belong in the plot summary? and 2) the long discussion directly above this one. In the one that was archived, you didn't oppose the reason PNW Raven gave for its removal, and in fact, you checked out of the discussion altogether. In the more recent discussion when this was brought up again, you seemed fine with all the changes that we worked on together commenting at the end that the plot was "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)

@GoneIn60: I did not introduce any of the words "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.

to

leading it to fall through a glass roof and impaled on the brow horns of a Triceratops fossil skull.

which you can see is ungrammatical ("to... impaled"). A second IP after them changed that to

leading it to fall through a glass roof and killed

on the brow horns of a Triceratops fossil skull.

which didn't fix the grammatical error ("to... killed") and introduced an extraneous line break. What I did then was insert the word be to 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.

which is still not how I'd phrase the sentence if I were composing it myself, being somewhat inelegant, but at least isn't ungrammatical any more.

Just so it's clear: I stopped quarrelling over whether to mention the Triceratops skull because the argument was going around in circles and generating more heat than light, and there were more important changes which I did want kept (and which have been). I maintain my position: I will not either remove or restore references to the Triceratops skull.

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I completely missed that you were simply repositioning text and copy editing. Not sure how I missed that, but I did. That's my fault for putting you on the defensive. I apologize. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

For anyone who is interested, I have highlighted several issues with the plot (mostly minor) and have proposed an improved version.

1. The article is included in the category for "Films set in 2018", but the year is not currently mentioned in the plot summary.
2. This was recently added, but I don't think it's necessary. The name of the volcano is not important and is never mentioned except briefly onscreen during the BBC news report. If this is kept, could we at least fix the misspelled word "destrucion"?
3. Some early reports referred to Toby Jones's character as "Gunnar Eversol", but the film and its credits only refer to him as "Mr. Eversoll".
4. There is no mention of why the Indoraptor was actually created, which seems surprising considering the dinosaur is a focal point of the plot. Could we clarify that it was created as a weaponized dinosaur? Otherwise, it's unclear why a new dinosaur would need to be created and what purpose it would have.
5. Zia does not evade capture. She was captured back on the island and was not freed until near the end of the film when Franklin came along to rescue her.
6. Maisie does not lead Owen and Claire to the Indoraptor. In the film, Claire and Maisie are walking beside each other as they follow Owen down a hallway. Anyway, it doesn't matter who leads who.
7. At the end of the film, Malcolm declares that the world has entered a Jurassic era and must now co-exist with the dinosaurs, but the plot summary does not specify how the dinosaurs spread around the world. According to the summary, one minute the dinosaurs are loose in northern California, and then suddenly humans are in a Jurassic age of dinosaurs. The summary doesn't explain how that happened, and therefore Malcolm's declaration/warning does not make much sense. Sure, dinosaurs in northern California is not good, but it does not affect the human population on a global scale. The current summary does not mention the dinosaurs that were shipped out before the auction was disrupted. As it stands, Malcolm's declaration is the result of something that is not fully explained in the plot summary.

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)

Just saw this. For the most part, I think those changes are fine. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Latest reversion

@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)

VeryRarelyStable: I hear your concerns, but let's get something straight about my position. I do NOT believe in final versions that should be enshrined forever. That's silly nonsense. At the heart of the matter are editors like yourself and PNW Raven, revisiting periodically to mess with the plot summary knowing damn well how contentious this section has been in the past. It's not like the film's plot is evolving, requiring frequent updates. Sure, there's always room for improvement, and you may spot an opportunity to do so with a bold edit from time to time. Nothing wrong with that, but major changes that harshly grate against previous consensus have the appearance of deceit and deception; waiting a few months and sneaking back in when you think no one's watching. If there's something rude to point out here, it's actions like that.

Secondly, I'll take your "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)

P.S. – I won't be addressing the "Triceratops skull" comment. For starters, it wasn't a part of the recent revert, and secondly, it was discussed in the previous section. Unless you are motioning to have it included, there's no reason to address it here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I want to make clear what my objections have been to the various versions of the Fallen Kingdom plot summary. Foremost, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its standard is that text be written in a suitable encyclopedic style, without contractions, and unembellished prose. The movie summaries are supposed to be a BRIEF overview of the plot, and not a detailed retelling of the entire story that is a substitute for seeing the film. Too many editors overwrite a summary with excessive, unnecessary detail and in a personalized and emotion-tinged manner. They become wedded to certain scenes, settings, or characters and write in an "in-universe" style. I'm grateful that the triceratops skull was not reintroduced, as that was a prime example of an editor reliving a "movie moment" and becoming possessive of it. A rule in writing is to use as few words as possible which editors should follow, though that does not mean the prose should be static or choppy. I suppose most editors revisit the pages they work on, and that is to be expected.

P.S. I just made a minor change to the summary. There was a repetitive phrase which I modified. PNW Raven (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the recent, minor change. I'm sure there are many more we can continue to do over time, trimming out repetitive wording, improving grammar, and removing drive-by disruption as it occurs. I think we're all in agreement there and no need to discuss any of that first. However, for anything that verges on a major edit, I would just hope that the heavily-involved editors – mainly the three of us – continue to keep a channel of communication open and drop a note here on this talk page as a common courtesy, either before or after making the change. I think that would help keep tempers cool and discourage knee-jerk reverting. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't see any need for any major revisions. It works the way it is now. There's always room for improvement in any work, of course, but any for Fallen Kingdom would be minor in my opinion. I often see things that could be improved after being away from a piece for awhile that I didn't see while immediately working on it. I believe writers should periodically step back to reset their brains a little.PNW Raven (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and thanks again for your help. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:05, 29 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)

At this point, I'm starting to realize it's probably best if I just unwatch this page. As you say, it's not as if there's going to be any new findings to report on the plot. I've laid out my main concerns above, so I shan't reiterate them; certainly there are other pages where old consensus really is treated as unviolable canon, and that's the kind of situation that WP:OWN was written for. I believe there is a WP policy somewhere saying that 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; I feel the editing on this page could stand to strive a little harder for that standard. However, as I say, I think it's best if I just unwatch the page and bow out, rather than letting it bug me to the point where I find myself berating people. —VeryRarelyStable 02:11, 9 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"

VeryRarelyStable: There are quite a few film pages on my watchlist, and this is exactly the approach I take. If an edit is a necessary improvement, I'll leave it or make a minor adjustment and move on. Other times, the edit is not an improvement or reduces article quality in my opinion, and I'll revert it. Any editor, registered or unregistered, is expected per WP:ONUS to take it to the talk page or seek other forms of dispute resolution.

Editors "maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy" is not a form of ownership per WP:OWN#Single-editor ownership, and the recommendation that editors discuss their proposal on the talk page after being reverted is covered at WP:STEWARDSHIP. Making references to previous discussions, by the way, is not a form of "ownership" either (also see WP:STEWARDSHIP). The willingness to listen to what other editors have to say and work with them on improving the article, which we have done here on multiple occasions, is the opposite behavior. If you still disagree on any of these points and would like to discuss further, perhaps with second opinions, please let me know. It would be unfortunate for you to drop out altogether, but I would understand. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Critical reception summary in the lead

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)

GoneIn60, I made this edit before seeing your comment. How do you feel about it? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Overall an improvement, but I made a few additional changes and restored "break from recent franchise installments". This gives needed context to "darker" which would otherwise beg the question, "Darker than what?" --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, GoneIn60, I think your changes are helpful. I don't think the source is all that strong given that it's mostly just quoting from a few different reviews, but I realize the limitations in situations like these, and I also prefer to not quote Rotten Tomatoes in the lead. I appreciate your efforts. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that what we have in sources like this is a small grouping from which an editor's opinion is drawn. It certainly shouldn't be more prominent than RT or MC for its overall "mixed" assessment. However, there may be some rhyme and reason associated with the reviews they chose to mention, and there could even be more top reviews taken into account that quotes weren't pulled from. Unfortunately, we just don't know for sure, but the in-sentence attribution should at least separate opinion from declaration of fact, covering us from an encyclopedic point of view. Thanks for your efforts as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

That is exactly how I feel as well. Thanks again. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Poster billing

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:

https://nextdoor.com/for_sale_and_free/bc1e0bb1-16a4-4d8f-b26b-3df40721a112/

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)

Budget

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)