![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Prehistoric Planet page were merged into Walking with... on 14 November 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Does anyone know why they chose to use the name "Mesothelae" when Megarachne was found to be a eurypterid? It's somewhat odd, because when it was considered aranean it was thought to be a mygalomorph spider, not a mesothelan one. Orcoteuthis (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Since most paleontologists think Saurophagnax and Epanterias ARE Allosaurus subspecies, the note in the errors section should be under a trivia section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.24.221.83 (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
That is true. But Prehistoric Park had been made in 2006, and had no way of predicting Bistahievavor's coming. I think the note in the 'Errors' section should be deleted. and why are Prehistoric Park's errors even here? Prehistoric Park is not a spin-off (if it was, the T-rex, Arthropleura, Deinosauchus and Smilodon models would have remained the same) of the WWD series, even if it employs similar techniques. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.24.221.83 (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
It is definitely true for the T. rex and Deinosuchus. But I'd say the Smilodon and Arthropleura models were close enough. Let us not forget the woolly mammoth remains virtually unchanged in Prehistoric Park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.137.134 (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Also, Triceratops looks different as well, and no, I am not thinking of Torosaurus. Remember, an adult male T-rex kills a Triceratops, you only get to see its carcass but it looks nothing like the living animals seen in Prehistoric Park. Seriously, though, Prehistoric Park isn't even BBC, how on Earth could it be a spin-off. It would make more sense to say that Primeval is a spin-off series as it is actually BBC (although Primeval is pure fiction while the Walking With... series and Prehistoric Park are based on facts.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.169.168 (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I changed the Ornithocheirus size thing in Paleontological Innacuracies, next time i visit the article, its been reverted back to saying Quetzalcoatlus is larger. I looked at the articles for both, Wikipedia itself give Ornithocheirus a wingspan of 40, and Quetzalcoatlus, only 39. Therefore, i will edit the page again and do not want to see it changed back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.24.40 (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
You may wish to check the proper scientific literature as wikipedia is not a definitive source as well you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenticulina (talk • contribs) 15:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Besides, the program never even said that OrnithocheirusisTHE largest pterosaur. In Death of a Dynasty", it is clearly stated that Quetzalcoatlus had a wingspan of 13 metres, while Ornithocheirus is said to have a 12-metre wingspan. What's the big difference between 39 and 40 feet anyway, different sources have different ideas. My opinion is that the two pterosaurs were probably about the same size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.137.134 (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Reply
You know, I'm been thinking about Prehistoric Planet. It's not really part of a series, but more of a spin-off kind'a. Because the Trilogy of Life consits of Walking with Dino..., Walking with Beasts, and Monsters not Prehistoric Planet. --4444hhhh (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Stranger still, Wikipedia seems to conside Prehistoric Park a spin-off when it is in fact a completely separate programme.210.24.221.83 (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
This genus is founded on very scrappy and poorly described material - many dino-workers doubt it was a sauropod, or even animal, at all. Asserting as a fact that it was the biggest sauropod is unjustified. I'll take the liberty of toning down the language a bit. Orcoteuthis (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree. Argentinosaurus is the biggest well-known dinosaur. Brut. is only known from some fragmentary remains and its size is a mere estimate, while Amphicoelus is known from a single vertabrae, subsequently lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalraptor (talk • contribs) 22:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Me too. As far as most of us are concerned, there is too little of Bruhatkayosaurus and nothing of Amphicoelius, I think that the note shoukd be deleted entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.24.221.83 (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
We can not think up scenarios that would justify the artistic license and sloppy research done for Walking with series. We can not suggest that Utahraptor may have been able to cross two seas or go by way of Alaska and Asia to reach Europe, especially since no fossils of Utahraptor have been found outside of Colorado. The same thing for Pangaea: just because everybody lived on the same supercontinent does not mean that everyone would have lived in the same region. The regions of Siberia and South Africa were very different even 250 million years ago, and there is no evidence found that suggests that the fauna of Permian South Africa migrated from one end of Pangaea to the other.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
The guidebook gave its reasoning (Iguaodon and Polacantus were found in both Europe and the Americas), which is fairly reasonable. All the more why half the 'errors' are arguable and be put under a trivia section.210.24.221.83 (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Resolved
Image:Wws.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
I saw the next chapter on TV. It really shouldn't be a separate "walking with", its just a PC remix of the first one. I managed to get through the Triassic and part of the Morrison episode before flicking the TV off, and not much had changed. The Ornitholestes, for example, was still featherless and had the innacurate nose. The only thing that did change was the commenting, and the order of the scenes to cut out some of the more risque stuff (Postosuchus marking territory, cynodonts leaving their offspring behind...now they "take them with them") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalraptor (talk • contribs) 22:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
They did correct some material though, by giving Liopleurodon a more reasonable size of 40 feet. And since they're merely changing the narration it would be extremely tedious to change the raptors with feathers. They also mixed in some footage of what I think is either Dinosaur PlanetorWhen Dinosaurs Roamed America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameratsu (talk • contribs) 01:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
That would be freaky. Well, they also did correct one thing in the Triassic episode, fixing the location, instead of a desert, to a scrub forest, or something like that. But the main change was the narration and the PC correctness. By the way, how could they use clips from W.D.R.A. and D.P.? They use two different animations styles and are created by different people, right? I know Roamed America is, because the animation isn't as good as Walking With —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalraptor (talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Resolved
The image Image:Complete guide to prehistoric life.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
There's a new production out now, called Walking with Dinosaurs: The Arena Spectacular, which appears to be giant puppets and/or animatronics. It has a website at http://www.dinosaurlive.com, and is a production of The Creature Production Company "in association with" BBC Worldwide. Tagline: "See 17 life-size dinosaurs roam the arena in this astonishing show". Assuming there's only one set of the dinos, the show is in Albuquerque, New Mexico, US, as of March 17-21; no idea where they are moving after that. That's all I know about the production so far. This probably should go in the spin-offs section. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Update: There are at least two sets of the dinosaurs, which are a mixture of suits worn by human actors, puppets/marionettes and animatronics, as the website says that the UK tour (with 15 dinos) is ongoing as well. The show opened (in the UK anyway) in March 2009. There are bunch of other pages and videos and stuff at the site that can probably be plundered for enough detail for a proper paragraph or two at this article. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)\Reply
The errors section claims that Pterygotus is not the biggest arthropod of all time, and Jakelopterus and Arthropleura are. First off, while Arthropleura is longer, being an aquatic animal, Pterygorus is defintely heavier and larger. The whole Arthropleura debacle is jus nitpicking at WWM, when there is no evidence that Arthropleura is any larger. And Jake was deicovered 3 years after the documentary. I will take the liberty of editing it.
Should I add that Torosaurus may be Triceratops?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.86.130 (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
If it "may be" Triceratops I wouldn't list it as an inaccuracy until it is confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.154.87 (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, and Anatotitan "may be" Edmontosaurus, but I'm not putting that on the list. 70.80.215.121 (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Prehistoric Park, while starring Nigel Marven and produced by Impossible Pictures, is not considered part of the Walking With... series because it didn't premiere on the BBC, which owns the rights to the name, and wasn't produced by Tim Haines. Serendipodous 10:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
I have deleted this section as it appeared to be entirely original research without a single cite. If a reliable source has discussed inaccuracies of the series then it might merit a section, but Wikipedia is not the place for editors to collect examples of where they believe it is inaccurate. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
IfMr Fink has no further suggestion for either citing this content, or demonstrating how it is not original research, I take it I can remove it as such? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
I have readded this section since the walking with without presents that it has no inaccuricies. Which is far from true i will edit out invalid inaccuricies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.38.252 (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Should the name be changed to Walking with… as opposed to Walking with...? Note that … is only one character and ... is three. Chris (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
IsPrehistoric Park really a spin-off of the Walking with... series, or is it a series of its own, not affiliated with Walking with... at all? Because I see almost nothing that truly connects the serial with the series, other than both being made by Impossible Pictures and hosting Nigel Marvin. Just because some things have in common to each other, doesn't always mean they are a part of the other. Gabeluna27 (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply