 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Creation Of This Page edit
Copied and incorporated material originally on "Gorgonopsid" page, along with new technical information on the genus Gorgonops added here, and made that page a redirect to Gorgonopsia. M Alan Kazlev 05:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Appearance on Walking with Monsters edit
Do the producers actually said that it was this genus? on the show they never specify beyond the family level, calling it Gorgonopsid, given the place and the other animals shown it is obvious that it was Inostrancevia. Mike.BRZ (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- The whole section was utter crap, so I've cut it out. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- In Walking with Monsters it really was Gorgonops, it is identifed in the book. Blogorgonopsid 13:10 4. 1. 2014 (UTC)
- True, but inconsequential, especially since they had Gorgonops interacting with Permian Siberian animals, leading to, at one point, inane original research speculation that Gorgonops was able to wander the entirety of the supercontinent.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's really in that book as Gorgonops. So, what about to create "In popular culture" section? In Primeval it was probably Gorgonops too. Blogorgonopsid 14:15 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Anachronism then, or ignorance given how gorgonops didn't live in rusia nor lived alongside Scutosaurus, and monster of the week type of "popular culture" sections are mostly avoided here in Wikipedia. Mike.BRZ (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, in popular culture sometimes is not something correctly, but that's not a problem. There are many films and TV shows, where we've seen prehistoric creatures, that really never met both. "Popular culture" sections are the best advertising for the shows, movies or books. Look at Czech Wikipedia - there I always create sections like this. So...? Blogorgonopsid 11:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Except that "In popular culture" should not be used as a means of advertisement, as per WP:NOTADVERTISING--Mr Fink (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I really know this, it was irony, but for readers it's good information section. To create it is good idea I think. Blogorgonopsid 20:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Except that "In popular culture" should not be used as a means of advertisement, as per WP:NOTADVERTISING--Mr Fink (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, in popular culture sometimes is not something correctly, but that's not a problem. There are many films and TV shows, where we've seen prehistoric creatures, that really never met both. "Popular culture" sections are the best advertising for the shows, movies or books. Look at Czech Wikipedia - there I always create sections like this. So...? Blogorgonopsid 11:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Anachronism then, or ignorance given how gorgonops didn't live in rusia nor lived alongside Scutosaurus, and monster of the week type of "popular culture" sections are mostly avoided here in Wikipedia. Mike.BRZ (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- In Walking with Monsters it really was Gorgonops, it is identifed in the book. Blogorgonopsid 13:10 4. 1. 2014 (UTC)
Bony flanges edit
Under the skull section; is there any citation available for the claim that the bony flanges were used to protect the upper canines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.51.166 (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)