Talk:Jurassic Park IV

message: I put it in again, but why did someone erase it in the first place? Are you a troll or what? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.23.40 (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did someone erase the script review? 

message: I've completely revised the article to purge it of all speculative and irrelevant information.  For instance, the script review was removed because the information I've newly inserted indicates that the script had gone through major changes by February 2006.  Thus, a review of an outdated script is not encyclopedic.  A timeline has now been established of the film's development, the last of which was actually mentioned in July 2006 by Spielberg.  I'm not convinced that an article on this film should exist, but I'd rather have verifiable, well-structured information than what existed before. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article revision 

message: Some possible improvements for the article could be: add more info on the film itself (if possible), not place so much emphasis on all the talk about it, andget less abstract info (talk) and more concrete info (what has happened and what will happen with the film.) Captain panda In vino veritas 16:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this is all the concrete information there is about it that I could find.  Production has not actually begun yet, which is why I voted for deletion in this article's AfD discussion.  The film is in development in 2007, just as it was in 2002.  As you can see, the release date has been changed several times, so there's no telling if the film will actually enter production anytime soon. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. That makes sense. Still, as soon as more info appears, you may want to add it to the article. Captain panda In vino veritas 16:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I plan to.  I have Google Alerts and RSS feeds to keep an eye out for headlines on upcoming films like these.  Just this morning, I found out that there's a screenwriter for World War Z.  Cool stuff. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Improvements

message: How can the infobox declare Johnston the director when the article itself says that he's only a possibility that was seconded by Spielberg?   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  18:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Director 

message: *
:Not sure how reliable or significant this is, but there ya go. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ellie Sattler returning? 

message: Is that second draft script reliable? The can of DNA could only survive for 24 hours (per JP1: "there is enough coolant inside for 24 hours. The embryos have to be back in San Jose by then.") Seeing as this is about 14 years later in the timeline, I doubt it'll work. — Deckiller 18:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ain't It Cool News is pretty reliable, though it's not the strongest source.  Maybe we can find other citations that reviewed this draft script to ensure that there is consistency in the plot analysis.  Otherwise, this plot hole could've been part of the reason why there was yet further work done on the script in 2005. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll admit, that post was mostly just to comment on the blatant plot hole :). But indeed; another citation for the script would be a good idea. — Deckiller 08:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable source?

message: The suggestion of merging was brought up in the recent AFD, and I was wondering what people would have in mind for a target article to merge into. -- Ned Scott 19:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jurassic Park franchise (which I think maybe should be retitled "film series", unless it is meant to contain more than just information on the films) was the proposed article. It needs to be developed to include some info on the previous 3 films, kind of like Spider-Man film series does.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, the novels too, I hope :) -- Ned Scott 23:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From reading the opening section, it's the novels, the games, the entire franchise. Granted, the films and novels will probably have the biggest sections as they are what is most well known.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this idea. -- Ned Scott 23:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the page could grow to be a very well rounded article, if we all work together for its benefit.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this going to be a film soon?  If so, then it merits its own article and will easily be fleshed in further as the film comes out.  --164.107.222.23 00:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Two people agreeing is not a good enough consensus to merge an article. This article should not have been merged without more people agreeing to do so.--Mjr162006 (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge?