Talk:Dinosaur Revolution

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plagiarism!

Some of you may not have known, but the the current episode descriptions appear to be plagiarism of Discovery Channel's official episode descriptions. These plagiarized descriptions need to be taken down. Chris (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as though nobody objected, I went ahead and did it myself. Chris (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point about that. and mayby somebody will rewrite the episode descriptions in there own words. User:76.242.110.8 (talk) 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the series premieres tonight, so I'm sure that there will be some new descriptions up there by tomorrow. Chris (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two more episodes

Should the article note that the last two episodes are yet to be aired.

Yes. I don't have time to add that right now, but I'll probably add it later. Chris (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pterosaur error

At the begining of the Moasasaur sequence Quetzelcoatlus was shown living 75 million years ago, when really it didn't appear untill 68 million years ago so im gonna change it to a different azhdarchid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.33.49 (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that was supposed to be Quetzalcoatlus? MMartyniuk (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding me!

Please stop putting minor animals in the creatures section, it's stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.33.49 (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of creatures such is generic cockroaches and fish in a show on dinosaurs is certainly debatable. Just by looking at the edit history, it appears that changes made by editors on either side of the argument have been reverted multiple times. It looks like it has the potential to become an edit war. I would recommend that other users make more posts here on the subject, rather than making repeated reverts. Chris (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of any animal not discussed in a third-party source should be removed. an editor watching the program with his own eyes and reporting what he sees is the definition of original research. If no external sources describe what animals are present, then those facts are not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. There are plenty of 3rd party sources discussing this show that we could use for citation (Pete von Sholly's blog, for instance). But if an animal isn't mentioned there (even if it's a major one0, it's a no-go. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, in other words, we need to make sure any animal in the list is confirmed by additional sources other than the episode? Chris (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is to prevent OR and non-notability issues. If no third party sources other than the episode itself says "that plant is a ginko," or "that dino is a "T. rex", then as far as wiki is concerned, nobody cares. Listing every organism on screen is left for independent fan sites. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, I have one more question. If we shouldn't be using the episodes as proof of the animals, etc. without additional sources, could we use them alone as proof for other things instead? Perhaps as proof that David Krentz is the director, or that it was produced by Creative Differences? Chris (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basic stuff like that should be ok, but it shouldn't be hard to find external sources for it. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be a suitable source to prove that David Krentz is the director? Chris (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the perfect kind of source for this type of article. As much information from magazine articles and interviews like that as possible should be incorporated. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added some new information based on that interview. Chris (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions about possible edits to the article

I made a DVD recording of the first two episodes from which I could create a JPG of PNG image of the title card to place in the Infobox television template. Is it necessary at this point? Could we use one of the Comic-Con promo posters instead? Would both of these constitute fair use?
~~Is anyone planning on writing plot synopses for the episodes? This would probably eliminate the need for the animal lists.~~
Also, the links to the Discovery/Science schedules we currently have at the beginning of the article aren't going to stay there forever. Would it be possible to create images of these schedules and use them as proof instead? Would that constitute fair use?
Again, I think the citations for the animal lists (currently citations #1, 3-5) may be placed incorrectly. If so, it's my fault, as I was the one to put the first two up and others then followed my example. Could someone please clear this up?
~~If we can gather more information, would it be viable to create a section on production history?~~ Thanks, Dinoguy2.

Thanks. Chris (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article changes

I am Canadian so I have already seen the last two episodes of Dinosaur Revolution. I deleted the part about Monolophosaurus as it is not in the episode (possibly due to being confused with Sinraptor or Guanlong), and added an unidentified sauropod and wrote "possibly Mamenchisaurus" as that's what I think it probably was because, as far as I know, it was the only sauropod that co-existed with Guanlong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

24.36.148.242, do you have any way of re-watching these two episodes so you could write plot synopses? Chris (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I have a DVR recording of both, I'll re-watch them as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks. Chris (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content

Some editor(s) keep re-adding a completely unsourced list of animals complete with blatant speculation regarding the identity of unnamed creatures. Not only is this a blatant violation of OR policy, but it is often wrong (they repeatedly refer to the sea lizards in episode 1 as Mosaruaurs, for example, when the director himself has stated they are Tylosaurus, as is currently cited in the article). Any content without an accompanying valid source should be reverted. additionally, Wikipedia is not a series of unannotated lists, so any additions should also be in prose form if possible. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted reviews online and have watched all of the episodes. I know a complete genus list, if nescessary, with additional plot sequences. Taylor Reints (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They put it all back up again, this time claiming that "anyone who deletes this CORRECT information will be given a warning." Chris (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while generalized descriptions of the episodes may be necessary, the article should not become a list of animals featured. It is explicitly stated in the Television MoS that TV-related articles should be written in prose form and should not become lists of information. Chris (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pterosaur Ptantrum (Tantrum)

Does anyone know what the pterosaurs in the Cretaceous Mongolia segment of episode 3 was? My best guess is Azhdarcho but since it is only known from Uzbekistan, another central Asian pterosaur that I don't know about is more likely. Anybody have a decent identification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we could figure it out, it would be original research unless one of the creators said it in a published interview or book somewhere. As stated in the article, some "generic" animals were used to fill the background and were never intended to be any real animal. The Mongolia sequence in Ep. 3, as stated by Tom Holtz, is based on the Wulanushi formation. Zero pterosaurs are known from that time and place, so it is a fictional species. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renderer information is incomplete or possibly erroneous

Episode 1 and 4 were rendered using The Bakery's "Relight" package. I'm not sure what was used for rendering 2 and 3 because I didn't work on them. If you need external reference http://www.bakery3d.com/testimonials Xaostation (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I got the renderer information from an interview with David Krentz, the director, which can be found here, that claims that the rendering was done in Autodesk Maya. I'll definitely check out your link, though. I want all the information in the article to be as accurate as possible. Chris (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added that info for you. Thanks. Chris (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot synopses

~~Are the plot synopses really relevant to the article? I think they are too in-depth. If we do decide to keep them, they should be rewritten, because they aren't looking very good now.~~ Chris (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot synopses are gone now. Chris (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about the validity of the citations

I noticed that two of the current citations link to YouTube videos of the episodes (the citations are also formatted incorrectly). Isn't citing your own viewing of the episodes considered original research? Chris (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Such content should be deleted on sight. There seems to be one user who desperately wants to turn this encyclopedia article about a television production into a fan page about a fictional 'universe'. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section

If we can gather enough sources, would it be viable to create a section on reception? An example of a source we could use would be this. Chris (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this. Chris (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this. If I can gather just a couple more, then I think I'll just write the section myself. Chris (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This, and the Metacritic page. Chris (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another that I found on the Metacritic page. Chris (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so here's a reception section I typed up in my sandbox. Please give me your opinions on it. If you can, post improved versions below.

Reception

Dinosaur Revolution has generally received mixed reviews from critics. Brian Swetik of Smithsonian criticized the show, citing low-quality animation and a lack of scientific content. He described it as "more of a dinosaur tribute than a scientific documentary". Holtz commented on the review and generally agreed with Swetik's analysis of the program.^[1] Linda Stasi, a TV critic for the New York Post, criticized the show for being too "cutesy," although she did note that the program teaches viewers "a huge amount of interesting stuff".^[2] Ross Langager of PopMatters expressed concerns similar to those of Swetik and Stasi, criticizing the show for its lack of scientific content and seriousness.^[3] Brian Lowry of Variety had a more positive outlook on the show: while he was critical of the show's lack of "revolutionary" content, he still determined that it was "a creditable stab at offering viewers a taste of life on a prehistoric planet."^[4] The opinions of New York Daily News reviewer David Hinckley were very similar to those of Lowry.^[5]

References

^ Swetik, Brian (2 September 2011). "The Dinosaur Revolution Will Be Televised". Dinosaur Tracking (Smithsonian). Retrieved 28 September 2011. ...what gets me is that Dinosaur Revolution is being presented as a program about the latest dinosaur science when the actual scientific content is minimal.
^ Stasi, Linda (2 September 2011). "Dino-might". New York Post. Retrieved 28 September 2011. What's weird, though, about the series is that the dinosaurs act just a little too Disney cutesy.
^ Langager, Ross (2 September 2011). "It's 3am in a Jurassic Forest. It's 'Dinosaur Revolution'". PopMatters. Retrieved 28 September 2011. ...it's apparent that Dinosaur Revolution is not revolutionary in form or content, and moreover, that its melding of entertainment with science ends up disfiguring both.
^ Lowry, Brian (1 September 2011). "Dinosaur Revolution". Variety. Retrieved 28 September 2011.
^ Hinckley, David (1 September 2011). "'Bad to the Bone: The Dinosaur Revolution'". New York Daily News. Retrieved 28 September 2011. "Bad to the Bone" isn't quite as revolutionary as it suggests, but it's a lively account of some big guys who, if it weren't for a single stray asteroid, might still be here today.

I personally think it might be a little too biased. Chris (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine, it presents both positive and negative aspects of the reviews, and it gets across the overall impression of all the reviews I've seen so far. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add it to the article now. Thanks for your opinion. Chris (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed reviews? I'd say they are all negative, as they should be. The series is a joke and a perfect example of what happens when Hollywood bumps into dinosaurs (whatever that word means). Anthropomorphization is what is clearly going on. Walking with dinosaurs is a far more accurate (in so far as it can be) account of life at that time.1812ahill (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section (and the unleadworthy bit in the lead) are glaringly sugarcoated. Picking the "to be fair..." thing from each clearly negative review and giving it undue weight doesn't make the reviews "generally mixed". This was clearly written by a fan (or crew member), grasping at straws. I don't care enough to fix it, just noting the problem still exists for those who care. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New version of DR to be released - too early/source not good enough to incorporate into article?

http://dinotoyforum.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=dinos&action=display&thread=4388&page=20

Apparently many of the program's creators were disappointed by Discovery's handling of the show. If you scroll down to reply #396 by "dinotastic," there are claims made that the DVDs and merchandise were pulled from the Discovery Channel Store until the creators could produce a new version "more worthy of their creative efforts". This alone would be considered speculation and is certainly not enough, but in the next post, David Krentz, the director, confirmed everything that had been said by dinotastic.

Would these posts considered reliable sources? Once the new version is released, I'm sure there will be more information about it that we could incorporate into the article in addition to/instead of this. Chris (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think MB posts are stretching it a bit. At least DML posts are in a permanent archive. Can we wait for this to turn up somewhere more permanently verifiable? MMartyniuk (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly. Chris (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody finds another source that could be used, please post a link here. Chris (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2011/09/the-dinosaur-revolution-will-be-televised/#comment-4830 Von Sholly commented on the Smithsonian review and mentioned it. Chris (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment by Von Sholly. Chris (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Created the section. If you can find any more info on this, please add it. Chris (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out: http://www.borders.com.au/video/dinosaur-revolution/27796228/ Could this be the new Blu-Ray version talked about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.218.233 (talk • contribs)

Based on what that entry says, it looks like it could be the new version, but I don't think that the entry confirms enough for that info to be included in the article just yet. Thanks for the update, though. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 19:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)][reply]

UPDATE: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dinosaur-Revolution-2011-4-DVD-Discovery-Documentary-/180859116587?pt=Music_CDs&hash=item2a1c0b1c2b#ht_1394wt_1185

Edit

Take a look at the List of episode section of this article, then look at the list of episodes section on the planet dinosaur article here. See the difference? I don't know why we aren't discussing the episodes in detail, and listing all the animals.

I don't think that Planet Dinosaur's episode list is a very good model because it doesn't cite any sources. See WP:V. I don't think that information should be added to episode lists without proper sourcing. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 20:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dinosaur Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

['smithsonianreview'-1] Swetik, Brian (2 September 2011). "The Dinosaur Revolution Will Be Televised". Dinosaur Tracking (Smithsonian). Retrieved 28 September 2011. ...what gets me is that Dinosaur Revolution is being presented as a program about the latest dinosaur science when the actual scientific content is minimal.

[nypostrev-2] Stasi, Linda (2 September 2011). "Dino-might". New York Post. Retrieved 28 September 2011. What's weird, though, about the series is that the dinosaurs act just a little too Disney cutesy.

[poprev-3] Langager, Ross (2 September 2011). "It's 3am in a Jurassic Forest. It's 'Dinosaur Revolution'". PopMatters. Retrieved 28 September 2011. ...it's apparent that Dinosaur Revolution is not revolutionary in form or content, and moreover, that its melding of entertainment with science ends up disfiguring both.

[4] Lowry, Brian (1 September 2011). "Dinosaur Revolution". Variety. Retrieved 28 September 2011.

[5] Hinckley, David (1 September 2011). "'Bad to the Bone: The Dinosaur Revolution'". New York Daily News. Retrieved 28 September 2011. "Bad to the Bone" isn't quite as revolutionary as it suggests, but it's a lively account of some big guys who, if it weren't for a single stray asteroid, might still be here today.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]