Talk:Walking with Dinosaurs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cost of Series

The Guinness Book of World Records reports that the series was the most expensive documentary series per minute ever made [1]

is this still true? the citation no longer works, and i'm sure "planet earth" cost more in total, but i dont know per minute? Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 21:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

True. I believe it was about $9,000,000 but I have forgotten. Radical3 18:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sea Monsters

Who can contribute to this section?61.230.78.58 12:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I probably can. I've seen all three episodes of Sea Monsters before. Maybe, I can add some facts. Radical3 23:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I remember seeing sea monsters in south africa where it was shown with chased by dinosaurs. a lot of it was cut out and it wasnt shown in order so it became quite confusing.

Criticism/So-Called Violence

I'm removing some things here including that whole list of 'so-called violence' because it is biased; especially that list is completely unecessary. Jerkov 19:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Could we add some kind of paragraph showing that the programme has attracted criticism for it's portrayal of theories as fact? I certainly felt when watching it that the stylistic choice by the producers to humanise the creatures often involved very questionable "facts".

e.g. Episode 1

The Thrinaxadon young are stated by the voice over to "leave the nest after nine weeks". There is very little evidence the programme makers could give to lend weight to such a suggestion.

and Episode 2

the method of egg-laying by Diplodocus is pure speculation - I remember seeing a "making of" documentary about the episode, in which the producers were shown picking this method as the most televisual out of several possible theories. They then showed the special effects team designing the ovipositor apparatus from scratch, without reference to any fossil evidence.

All instances like this throughout the series are presented as gospel truth, something which I know paleontologists around the world have found uncomfortable (no luck on finding quotable sources, though). However, could we not add to the criticism section:

Some have found the programme's portrayal of life to be based upon speculation and assumption without detailed evidence from the fossil record. It has been suggested that the programme at times deviates from documentary into drama by including unvalidated theories.

Any thoughts? I feel this would greatly increase the balance of the article, especially if anyone can find citations to back it up. 82.3.211.32 09:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Aren't such details supposed to maintain the illsuion of this being a real documentary? Open admission that we don't know something would destroy the sense of immersion that was pretty much the main point of this series. It depends really on whether the stated goal of the programme was to provide a documentary about prehistoric animals, or to give the impression of being a documentary about prehistoric animals. I tend towards the latter - after all, the specific "characters" each episode follows and the landscapes and events surrounding them aren't (necessarily) real either. -- Leushenko (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely right, Leushenko. See my note at the end of the 'Unidentified animals' section. Having said that, it would be true to say that some critics at the time took the view that it was unclear which 'facts' were known and which were made up, so that view should be cited in the article. Ammilne (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Dinosaur World

Didn't there used to be a simutainment downloadable game called Dinosaur World? It was a sort of virtual exploration game? Should there be a section on that?

Well...ever since the BBC site broke down, leaving only the Big Al game, the Sea Monster Adventure, the sea monster fact files and the essays about each episode, Dinosaur World was removed. And there isn't another download of it at the Australian site copy either. It doesn't have much to do with Walking With Dinosaurs, besides featuring animals from the film, and so shouldn't be included. Maybe.61.230.72.211 00:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Dinosaur World has been put back on the BBC page! Dora Nichov 02:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If u dont belive him, i have the game User:4444hhhh

Saurophtirus

I don't recall the book describing Saurophtirus as an ectoparasite on Diplodocus; it clearly shows the creature to live on pterosaurs like a louse. So I'm removing its entry under Time of the Titans. Jerkov 17:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Spirits Of The Ice Forest - Pterosaur

Does anyone have an idea of which kind of pterosaur appeared in Spirits Of The Ice Forest? Dora Nichov 01:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A few fragmentary pterosaur specimens have been found in Australia, but none have been named. Probably just meant to be a generic pterosaur.Dinoguy2 19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh. That was what I had been trying to find out -- the name of the pterosaur found near Australia. Dora Nichov 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

They didn't name the pterosaur but I believe they name it in the encyclopedia. Radical3 18:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, they didn't or else I wouldn't be asking. Dora Nichov 09:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is Rhamphorhynchus.--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That pterosaur is called Mythunga —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.72.156 (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it was a generic pterosaur. Mythunga wasn't named until 2008, nearly 10 years after WWD was made, and hadn't even been discovered at the time as far as I know. Unless the producers had a time machine. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Its a re-use of the nameless crested pterosaur in Giant of the Skies. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that it is Mythunga (based on a jaw fragment from Queensland, far to the north, described after WWD was made). This is the same pterosaur model that you are identifying as Lonchodectes and Uktenadactylus in GoS, again without supporting evidence. (Lonchodectes was thought to be Ornithocheirus at the time of production, Uktenadactylus has a crested snout unlike the CGI pterosaur).Ozraptor4 (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If they had a time machine, it would be kind of pointless to create a documentary with CGI when they could travel to the Mesozoic and film real dinosaurs.

Sea Monsters And Prehistoric Park

Maybe these two should be merged with this article. They ARE specials, you know. Dora Nichov 03:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Merging them with this article would make it a bit long; I don't see a problem with keeping them seperate. Jerkov 19:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Then the other specials should have their own pages too. Either that, or have all the specials combined in one article called "Walking With... Specials" or something. Dora Nichov 02:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think The Giant Claw and Land of Giants can be given an article under "Chased by Dinosaurs". And didn't Ballad of Big Al use to have its own page? As for Prehistoric Park, is it really a special to WWD? It seems more like a spin-off series to me. Jerkov 16:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, The Ballad Of Big Al once had it's own page. Chased By Dinosaurs and Sea Monsters are definitely specials. Prehistoric Park? Not sure, haven't seen it yet. Dora Nichov 21:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Prehistoric Park is a completly seperate series, using similar production staff and starring Nigel MarvinMichael.O'SullivanLim

I know it's separate series, but that doesn't stop it from being a special. Dora Nichov 09:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But its not even part of the BBC, its an ITV series. Even if it was made by Impossible Pictures, you cant argue cos you haven't seen it yet OK?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BOB 17:43 28 February 2007

let's look at it this way: in Sea Monsters, you see t-rex briefly, and it looks exactly like the rex in WwD. now, the rex in prehistoric park looks COMPLETELY different. i think that we should take that into account when referring to them as seperate series. its like th raptors in jurassic park and the supposed dromaeosaurus in "when dinosaurs roam america" and the ones(again, supposedly)in WwD Brontoraptor 01:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

PP is not as closely related to WWD as SM, but they're still distantly "related". Dora Nichov 10:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

i guess i see what you mean. i think that a link to SM should be made on the PP page Brontoraptor 18:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I think most of the Walking With... pages link to it so it's fine. Dora Nichov 02:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because Prehistoric Park is by Impossible Pictures doesn't mean it's a WWD special. You might as well say that Primeval is a special as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.173.139 (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Unidentified animals

Can we be sure that the small ornithopod in episode 6 is a Parksosaurus? There were two similar creatures, Thescelosaurus and Orodromeus, in North America at the same time. Is the creature identified anywhere? If not, it should be listed as "Unidentified hypsilophodontid, possibly Parksosaurus, Thescelosaurus or Orodromeus". By the way, what is the dinosaur-like animal scavenged by the T.rex in episode 6? Jerkov 19:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the Parksosaurus, but I think the dead dinosaur is a baby Tyrannosaurus or something. Dora Nichov 21:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We still need to find out:

• What were the pterosaurs in Spirits Of The Ice Forest? (Probably one of those unamed pterosaurs found near Australia, the article says Pterodactyl)
• I saw Time Of Titans again and thought I saw Othneilia...
• What were the small pterosaurs in Giant Of The Skies? (The article says Pteranodon)
• What were the small ornithopods in Death Of A Dynasty? (The article says Parksosaurus)

Dora Nichov

Okay, I fixed some of the article entries because they were unbased speculation and/or incorrect; here's some explanation:

• Spirits of the Ice Forest pterosaurs: Pterodactyl is not a valid term, many people mistakingly use it in reference to pterosaurs. The link went to Pterodactylus, which is even more off because that creature didn't exist 106 million years ago.
• The Time of the Titans ornithopod is definitely Dryosaurus; the same creatures (green with stripes) are seen in Ballad of Big Al and identified as Dryosaurus. Othnielia have blue heads.
• The small pterosaurs in Giant of the Skies were not Pteranodon; that creature didn't exist yet 127 million years ago. They may look like young Pteranodon, but that's because the Quetzalcoatlus model from ep. 6 was reused; this has a small crest. I don't know of any pterodactyloïd pterosaur in the Early Cretaceous with such a crest. The closest thing is Gallodactylus, but that one's from the Late Jurassic.
• The Death of a Dynasty ornithopods: I fixed the article to show the three possible creatures here.

If the user(s) who keep changing these things back do(es) it again I'll talk to him/them.

As for the creature in ep. 6, it doesn't look like a Tyrannosaurus- both the young and adult rexes don't have the crocodile-like back plates this creature has. It looks most like a basal archosaur like Postosuchus or Ornithosuchus, but these went extinct in the Triassic. Jerkov 18:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, the dead "thing" was a carnivore anyway. Dora Nichov 02:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This creature look like a Ceratosaurus,but this dinosaur live at Jurassic,not at Cretaceous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.223.226 (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The episode 4 pterosaur with the Pteranodon crest is probably Ludodactylus, but until someone tells us officially what is is (i.e. on their website) we cannot be sure. And there was another ornithopod in the late Cretaceous, Oryctodromeus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalraptor (talk • contribs) 22:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The small theropod in Death of a Dynasty is a Nanotyrannus. I also have identifications for two other unidentified animals in the episode. The small mammal carcass seen was from a Purgatorius and the small ornithopods are not Parksosaurus but instead Orodromeus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinolover45 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Look mate, I don't think you're understanding. You can't simply look at lists of animals that lived in roughly the same time/place and say that this is what the producers of the TV show intended to depict. Ludodactylus was not described until 2003. It did not exist as far as anyone knew when WWD was made. It is literally impossible for them to have used Ludodactylus in this show. So what pteorsaur was that? none. It was a generic "pterosaur" they simply made up. Sometimes, in dinosaur shows, people making entertainment or art will insert small, non-descript animals in the background and don't care what they are. Is this accurate, or rigourous science documentary making? No, but many things in WWD were inaccurate and made up. Attempting to assign specific names to them is foolish, and complete original research. I suggest putting your time and effort into something more useful. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I know that this comment is 10 years too late - but I have to say that Dinoguy2 is right. How do I know? Because I was there - I'm the 'Milne' mentioned at the beginning of the article. I was the Director of Computer Animation for the original series, and for most of those that followed. WWD was never intended to be a documentary series as such - Tim Haines' idea was to make a programme that most people would happily watch. He knew that a straightforward documentary-style programme featuring lots of head-and-shoulders shots of bearded men and footage of fossils being dug up wouldn't cut the mustard, so he decided to go for the 'mockumentary' approach. Obviously, he wanted to try and 'get it right' as much as possible, but the primary purpose of the series was to entertain, and hopefully to encourage younger people to take an interest in paleontology. In this he succeeded admirably. As for the tiresome arguments in this section about whether such-and-such a creature appeared in a minor role in this or that programme, Dinoguy2 is also right when he says we often used generic creatures in bit-parts. Most of the time we were desperately trying to finish a very complex show against a deadline, inventing completely new animation and CGI techniques as we went, and the question of what the creature was called simply didn't arise. Anyway, in the next few weeks I shall dig out my old journals and cuttings and see if I add anything to the article - with all the appropriate references, of course! Ammilne (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

I'm getting a bit tired of constantly having to correct the creature listings, especially the persistent "pterodactyl" listing for the pterosaur under Spirits of the Ice Forest and stuff like that. Should we semi-protect the page? Jerkov 18:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Me too! Some guy keeps changing "Thrinaxodon" to "cynodont", "Dromaeosaurus" to "dromaeosaur" and "Allosaurus" to "allosaur" on this page and "Indricotherium" to "indricothere", "Cynodictis" to "bear dog", "Chalicotherium" to "chalicothere", "Embolotherium" to "brontothere" and "Entelodon" to "entelodont" on the Walking With Beasts page. This guy has also been seen on the When Dinosaurs Roamed America article. All three pages should be protected. It's tiring doing this reverting over and over. I mean, can't this guy see the refences beside each unidetified animal? Dora Nichov 02:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

RED ALERT! I've just caught the guy on Sea Monsters! He's: 84.45.157.120, I think. I've left him a message on his talk page. By the way, we should protect all four pages that have been vandalised by him. Dora Nichov 02:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the nature of his edits, I don't think he's an actual vandal, but that doesn't change the fact that he's messing things up. If we can settle this by talking to him I'd prefer that over the semi-protection, but if he makes more of these edits after being informed by you I think semi-protection is the best course of action. Jerkov 15:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

NEWS! He has replied. Tells me to leave him alone. Says he's only eleven years old, blah blah blah... Dora Nichov 13:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, you're handling the situation in a overly aggressive manner. Keeping a calm tone makes for a far better pwning. -- Majin Gojira 13:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Whadya mean we're (or I'm) handling the situation aggresively? Dora Nichov 13:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the matter appears to already have been settled, It's a little late for this:

Stop changing animal names in Walking With Dinosaurs, Walking With Beasts, When Dinoasurs Roamed America and Sea Monsters!

Since this is an "Opening volley", it would have been more effective to word it thusly:

Please stop changing the animal names on the following pages: Walking with Dinosaurs, Walking with Beasts, When Dinosaurs Roamed America and Sea Monsters.

Or, for even more authoritative:

Please refrain from changing the animal names...

For the rest of it:

It's very annoying! Can't you see references beside each animal!? You're making the articles less specified and less imformative! You... The nicest thing I can say is you're making the articles worse!

This just badly done, here. A far calmer approach would have elevated this greately. "It's very annoying" is jhighly subjective, and "The nicest thing I can say" is just a bland insult.

This would have been A) more word-effective and B) more direct.

Your edits only cause detriment to the articles in question, as prior to your edits, the animal identities were fully cited. Please refrain from continuing these edits.

An "Or risk moderator intervention." can be added if the need is felt.

But I'm a writer, so, I tend to be nitpicky that way. -- Majin Gojira 22:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. But I was a bit angry when I was writing that. After all, he WAS messing up the page quite thourghly. Dora Nichov 09:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

IT'S WORKED! He has agreed to stop. Dora Nichov 10:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I did find another 'pterodactyl' from him on this page today. Jerkov 15:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've explained the meaning of "Pterodactyl" on his talk page. Dora Nichov 00:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This is COOOOOL!!!!!!! Its like CSI Miami meets Napoleon Dynamite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry Dora, for the spin-off page higher up.I just realised your a really cool person!!!! 17:54 28 February 2007

Huh? What did I do? Dora Nichov 09:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is Part 2's Diplodocus identified as Camarosaurus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.162.215 (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are people changing the animals' page identification to what they are identified as on the show. THEY DO HAVE NAMES YOU ****ING IDIOTS!!!!! WHAT, DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK THERE WERE ANIMALS WITH THE GENUS NAMES "DROMAEOSAUR", "FISH", "SHARK", OR "POLAR ALLOSAUR"????!!!!!! I HAVE THREE WORDS FOR YOU PEOPLE, GET...A...LIFE. I'm sorry if that was a bit vulgar, but it is unimaginably immature to call animals by what they are called on the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.142.158 (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Overview Article

I think that there should be an overview article for the entire Walking with... series, to serve as an introduction. It should contain VERY BRIEF summaries of Walking with Monsters, Walking with Dinosaurs, Walking with Beasts, Walking with Cavemen (even if it is only loosely associated), The Ballad of Big Al, Chased by Dinosaurs, Sea Monsters and Prehistoric Park. It should also contain data such as the people who worked on the series, filming location, the CGI Company used for the projects, the puppet company used, etc. What does everyone else think of this?

P.S. A spin-off of "Walking with Beasts" titled "What Killed The Mega Beasts" was also made and I think it should be included in the main Walking with Beasts article as a Walking with Beasts Special. - 03:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Walking With Cavemen has nearly nothing to do with the Walking With... series, other than a similar name and the fact it's from BBC. Dora Nichov 09:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I know it has little to do with it, but its a safe bet that anyone whose heard of it associates it with the rest of the Walking with... series. And those two similarities you mentioned aren't the only ones they share. What little CGI Walking with Cavemen has is also from Framestore CFC and they probably also used the same people to make the puppets (such as the Gigantopithecus) as they did in the other series. Besides being Anthropocentric, the only difference I see is the fact that the Series Creator Tim Haines was not involved. It's worth at least a mention. By the way, what did you think of my "overview article" idea?; and what is your take on "What Killed The Mega Beasts", which, by the way, also used Framestore? - 21:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think Walking With Cavemen has much to do with the rest of the series. Walking With Dinosaurs, Walking With Beasts and Walking With Monsters are known as the Walking With... Trilogy Dora Nichov 10:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Then we won't include Walking with Cavemen. But you still have not mentioned your opinion on the other concepts I have mentioned. - 22:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't have much time to finish my last message. I don't think we need an overview article, but we can make a new book at Wikibooks about the Walking With... series + specials. As for What Killed The Mega Beasts... I don't know much about that, can you tell me more? Is it really a special? And what animals does it feature? Dora Nichov 00:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What Killed The Mega Beasts is a Discovery Channel special that aired not long after Walking with Beasts. Most reviews are negative, though I like it. In particular, the animation seems to have been inferior and low-budget, but still from Framestore and better than the CGI effects I've seen in some other documentaries. Also, it is accused of being mostly sensationalist. If you like paleontology it is worth viewing (as I said, I like it). Just like "... Cavemen" it is only Loosely associated with the Walking with... series. The Species depicted are: Mammuthus, Megatherium, Castoroides, Megaladapis, Thylacoleo and Dinornis. The documentary talks about what could have caused the Ice Age Extinction: Chill (Climate change), Ill (Superplague disease) and Kill (Human hunting). It also shows the individual beasts and their possible reason for extinction. For more details, type the title in Google.com. You may find it on Amazon.com. - 01:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I have a list of the Creatures that were not given their own page in "The Complete Guide To Prehistoric Life". They may have been featured but they were not given their own page. They include creatures from the loosely associated spin-offs as well (such as Walking with Cavemen,Prehistoric Park and What Killed The Mega Beasts). They include animals which may simply have had cameos on the series (such as a dead individual) or they may have simply been mentioned in their respective series' books. All the other animals mentioned in the series have their own page in the book. There is a total of 60 creatures here.

Walking With Monsters:

• Mesothelae
• Rhinesuchus
• Euchambersia

Walking With Dinosaurs:

• Muttaburrasaurus
• Triceratops
• Dromaeosaurus
• Quetzalcoatlus
• Steropodon
• Phytosaurus
• Coelurus
• Plesiopleurodon
• Deinosuchus
• Parkosaurus
• Dinilysia
• Metoposaurus
• Edmontosaurus
• Saurophthirus
• Dryosaurus
• Leptolepis

Walking With Beasts:

• Formicium
• Eurotamandua

Walking With Cavemen:

• Gigantopithecus
• Paranthropus
• Homo habilis
• Homo ergaster
• Homo erectus
• Homo heidelbergensis

The Ballad Of Big Al:

• Apatosaurus

Chased By Dinosaurs:

• Azhdarcho
• Saurolophus

Sea Monsters:

• Halisaurus
• Bothriolepis
• Astraspis
• Graptolite
• Onychodus
• Cheirolepis
• Cladoselache
• Neuticosaurus
• Hainosaurus
• Squalicorax
• Mastodonsaurus

Prehistoric Park:

• Ursus
• Elasmotherium
• Toxodon
• Nyctosaurus
• Eosipterus
• Microraptor
• Mei
• Incisivosaurus
• Ornithomimus
• Troodon
• Albertosaurus
• Titanosaurus
• Parasaurolophus
• Crassigyrinus
• Pulmonoscorpius

What Killed The Mega Beasts:

• Megaladapis
• Dinornis
• Castoroides
• Thylacoleo

01:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I see more evidence that Walking With Cavemen is part of the series every time I search on the subject. - 01:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Walking With Cavemen is NOT included in the overview making-of episode from Walking With Monsters. Dora Nichov 01:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Also Mastodonsaurus is in the Sea Monsters book, there was no mention of it in Walking With Dinosaurs. Dora Nichov 01:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And the dwarf Allosaurus is meant to be an Allosaurus. Also, what is POINT of that list? Just because some animals aren't in the encyclopedia doesn't mean that they're not in the film. They are idetified from other sources too. Dora Nichov 02:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and have you started the new book on Wikibooks yet? Oh, yeah, you don't have an account. You can create one on Wikibooks. Wikimedia account creating doesn't require ANY information! Dora Nichov 02:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Humm. I could have sworn that Cavemen was part of the series. Oh well. I guess I should have done more research.The Mastodonsaurus thing was a mistake. I've fixed it. The point of the list is that I have WAY too much time on my hands and I happened to notice that the book was missing some creatures. As for the Book-creating and the fact that I need an account, to make an account you need cookies and I don't like them. Viruses/Spyware/etc. They may or may not have them, but I don't like to take chances. - 02:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Guess I'll have to create the book, then. Dora Nichov 04:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And what's Eurotamandua? Where do is appear? Dora Nichov 04:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added Dryosaurus to the Walking With Dinosaurs section of your list, as it had a cameo in there too. I also added Pterodactylus to The Ballad Of Big Al, I'm not 100% sure if it's there, though (see below), and removed dwarf Allosaurus. As I said, it's supposed to be an Allosaurus. Dora Nichov 04:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Added Coelurosaurus and Isotelus to the Sea Monsters section of your list. Also, I think there was good reason for the book-only animals to be excluded from the encyclopedia -- they didn't have animated versions! By the way, you may have to re-count your creatures. Dora Nichov 05:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Eurotamandua was the live-acted arboreal anteater in the first episode of Walking with Beasts.I've removed the Dryosaurus from The ballad of Big Al because it had a cameo on Walking with Dinosaurs first and there is only supposed to be one entry per animal. I don't think that the Pterodactylus was present but I will leave it there. The creature count has been fixed and is now up to 64. Is Isotelus a Trilobite? if it is then it should not be included as the encyclopedia had a page on trilobites. That would make the count 64. - 20:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Pterodactylus wasn't in Ballad of Big Al, the only pterosaur there was Anurognathus. Yes, Isotelus is a trilobite. It is identified in the Sea Monsters book as the giant trilobite Nigel uses to lure the giant orthocone (makes sense, since Isotelus is the largest known trilobite unless I'm mistaken). As for Coelurosaurus, it shouldn't be there. Coelurosaurs didn't exist yet 230 million years ago and Coelurosaurus itself is not even a valid name. The depicted creatures were probably supposed to be generic herrerasaurs, like Staurikosaurus. Jerkov 22:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Jerkov, you said that the coelurosaurs in When Dinosaurs Roamed America were Coelurosaurus, and now you say it's an invalid term. Isotelus is a Trilobite, it is mentioned, but doesn't have an entry in the encyclopedia, as is Rhinesuchus. By the way, if Anurognathus are decipted as feeding on Diplodocus's backs like modern oxpeckers, then why would BBC make it the pterosaurs that feed on carcasses? Dora Nichov 09:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a page on trilobites in the encyclopedia, so Isotelus does not need an entry to the list. - 13:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Jerkov, you said that the coelurosaurs in When Dinosaurs Roamed America were Coelurosaurus, and now you say it's an invalid term. It is indeed invalid, but since the creatures in WDRA were explicitely referred to as Coelurosaurus by the narrator it should be listed on that page- better to list an invalid name (but used in the series) than none at all.
• By the way, if Anurognathus are decipted as feeding on Diplodocus's backs like modern oxpeckers, then why would BBC make it the pterosaurs that feed on carcasses? It's either a mistake or the creatures supplement their diet with carrion. Either way, they're clearly intended to be Anurognathus; they have the same short jaws.

Jerkov, I know that the original version takes precedence. In this and many other aspects of my life, I am all about what is official. But my list was meant to be all-inclusive (if it was mentioned ANYWHERE in the Walking with... series in ANY VERSION/EDITION/etc. it must go in my list). By the way, if you know of any other edition that mentions any other creature, please let me know. - 22:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess if it was a mistake it wouldn't be right to keep it in the list. I'm removing it. By the way Jerkov, we have met before on Wikipedia. Did you see my concluding post on Talk:Rhinoceros concerning hybrid Rhinos?. - 23:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to raise another issue. Notice the fact that more evidence is being uncovered to support the fact that many of the Theropods in WWD are feathered. I think that the makers of WWD should refilm the scenes that used puppets of said creatures and replace the CGI's of the creatures wherever they appeared. Basically, they should make a new edition of WWD. I know that it is not yet certain that those creatures were feathered, but it's a safer bet to say that they were than to say that they weren't (though it's still possible that they weren't; see Juravenator ). Comments would be appreciated. - 02:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I agree about feathered dinosaurs. I remember When Dinsoaurs Roamed America saying they were coelurosaurs. Dora Nichov 09:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

HOLD EVERYTHING!! Comments would be appreciated. They also showed Utahraptor in Europe while it is only known from Europe, so this doesn't mean anything. By the way Jerkov, we have met before on Wikipedia. Did you see my concluding post on Talk:Rhinoceros concerning hybrid Rhinos?. Yeah, I remember that. Jerkov 13:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Have we all frogot what this disscussion was for in the first place? Who will make the book? I guess if no one volunteers, I will have to, as 68-something refuses to create an account. By the way, does anyone disagree about making the book in the first place? Dora Nichov 14:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought that you had established the fact that you would make it. - 20:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine I'll make it when I have enough time (I don't right now). Dora Nichov 10:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've started. You can help! Wikibooks: the Walking With... Series Dora Nichov 06:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, someone did it allready! Thanks!:)Ps: What killed the mega beasts is made ny someone else!74.104.224.214 01:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Ballad Of Big Al

It's a long time since I saw it, and I have some questions.

• Were the pterosaurs Anurognathus or Pterodactylus? Or were both featured?
• I know there's Apatosaurus, but in which part did it appear?

Dora Nichov 04:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the pterosaurs were anurognathus. Apatosaurus was in the hunting scene. - 20:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the sauropods in the hunting scene were Diplodocus. Apatosaurus was seen in several wide shots; it's basically a Diplodocus with more vivid coloring and no spines. Jerkov 21:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's good that The Ballad of Big Al has its own page, but it certainly deserves a reference and link somewhere on the article as an adaptation or a special. As of the current moment there is none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.84.240 (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Pages

I think The Ballad of Big Al and Chased by Dinosaurs should have their own pages. It makes the page too long if they are included in Walking with Dinosaurs. And how about a page for the making of Walking with Dinosaurs? Mr A 17:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Long pages aren't that bad. Most of the featured articles are very long. Anyways, there is not enough information on any of the ones you mentioned to make there own pages (they would be very short, if not stubs). In-fact, I think Sea Monsters should be included here as well. - 21:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd think we either gave the specials their own pages each, or merge all the specials into this page. I don't care as long as we do one of these. Dora Nichov 09:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'd go for merging the specials in then.Mr A 19:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Dora Nichov 01:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

We have three options so far:

1. Merge all specials into this page
2. Merge all specials into a separate psge, titled Walking With... Specials or something similar
3. Give all the specials separate pages

I don't care as long as we do one of them, though I personally prefer the first and second ones. Dora Nichov 09:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I vote option number 2 as the specials are somewhat different from the original series, but they are not long enough to warrant their own pages. - 02:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I vote for 1 or 2, as long as they are together.Mr A 15:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you say... Dora Nichov 09:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Took a while, but done for Big Al. J. Spencer 16:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Future Is Wild

Is there some relation of this series with The Future Is Wild? I find the narrative and visual styles similar. --Error 21:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Dora Nichov 05:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "The Future Is Wild" seems to be made by the same people that did the following: "When Dinosaurs Roamed America","Dinosaur Planet","Giant Monsters" and "Alien Planet". - 21:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe so too. NOT the same as the Walking With... Series. Dora Nichov 09:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Chased by dinosaurs

Some one keeps removing stuff from the Chased by Dinosaurs page which I made myself. I am so annoyed. Please get them to stop it.

That would be me. I do not think the article should have been split from the Walking with Dinosaurs page withought being thuroughly expanded. You appear to be assuming that the article you created holds precidence simply because you created it, and that's just self-serving. -- Majin Gojira 00:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you enjoy my new orginization of the pages.- DinoBird

i think that "chased by dinosaurs" should either get its own page or at least a section under "walking with dinosaurs". its seperate enough to deserve its own. its also annoying because ive been trying to find an article for that for reference for my own research, because right now it just redirects to the WwD page. anyone else think this should happen? Brontoraptor 01:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Nigil Marven did a really good job in that movie. I really liked that movie. It was really exciting to watch. I really liked all the aspects of the movie.--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Australian allosaur

Under Spirits of the Ice Forest, the large theropod is listed as Allosaurus (identified as allosaur). Just out of curiosity, if it's only identified as an allosaur in the show, why is it marked as Allosaurus, rather than "Unnamed allosaur" or something similar? Its presence in Australia is based on fragmentary bones that might belong to an allosaur, but nobody has referred them to any specific genus that I know of, and finding an actual Allosaurus in the Early Cretaceous of Gondwana, when all other known specimens come from the Late Jurassic of Laurasia, is extraordinarily unlikely. I think it's far more likely that it's either a carcharodontosaurid, a relict primitive tetanuran like Crylophosaurus, or something completely different (the bones in question have even been assigned to some kind of ornithomimid or alvaerzsaur). In short, better switch the label over to just allosaur or unnamed allosaur, and link allosaur to Allosauridae at least. Dinoguy2 05:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a dwaf allosaur. odd name for a dinosaur if you ask me!:)74.104.224.214 01:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Some dinosaurs weren't all that big. Anyway, dwarf is relative; a red dwarf star is still far bigger than the whole Earth.--Simul8 13:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's only known from a femur (not sure if it really is a femur, i may be wrong) that has a lot of resemblence with the allosaurus that lived 150 million years ago in West USA, only that it's half the size, suggesting that the allosaur that lived in Australia was half the size of the one in the US. Radical3 15:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Dora Nichov 13:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Which also means it's a probably new genus, not Allosaurus. Dinoguy2 00:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

i think it should go as "An unidentified species of dwarf(or polar) allosaur", and redirect to either "Allosaurus" or "Allosauridae". i suggest this because in an rpg that i started, the people go back in time and sometimes encounter undiscivered species, which are then labeled as something like "an unidentified species of coelurosaur" or "an unidentified species of Massospondylus". just my input, i only try to help. Brontoraptor 01:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Accuracy_Dispute/Unidentified animals, original research, etc.

Can someone please explain, in plain english (preferably using fewer than six commas), what exactly is disputed and where it might be discussed? Or, at the very least, edit the boilerplate in the article so it parses?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.168.174.141 (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Just a note about my reversion--including the names of unidentified animals is original research, and there was a tag on the top of the page requesting this be cleaned up. I did so, and removed the tag. Most of the identifications came from the companion book, which is why they are now listed in that section. Looking up an identification of an unidentified animal in a source outside the one you;re discussing is about the most basic definition of the word "research" I can think of, and is inappropriate (as is editorializing in comments following some entries, like the note about how hte Liopleurodon was too big: this is correct, but should be included as part of the discussion in the main text and properly sourced). Dinoguy2 05:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

These were very good changes. I would like to see the discrepancies between the book and the program accounted for and better integrated, but this is FAR superior to what was there before.

Usually the book describes a well-known animal (e.g. Thrinaxadon) as basis for a similar, though lesser-known animal (e.g. the North American cynodont cited by the Walking With folks as evidence for inclusion of a cynodont in the first scene of the program, which takes place in North America) that lived in the location of focus in the program. Perhaps a comment to this effect should be integrated, at least as a start.Denn333 05:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Really, I'm pretty sure both the book and website are meant to be references for the program. Dora Nichov 13:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the unidentified animals should only be listed when it's not possible for the depicted creature to be anything else (for instance, if a Carnotaurus was shown, but not identified anywhere). That's rarely the case though; I just removed Dsungaripterus again. Jerkov 15:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, THAT case should be turned to "unidentified pterosaur" because no source states it and because it can be anything. However, those that are referenced in the book and website should be listed as such. I can't quite believe that the site and book would use the name WWD and is by the makers of the program, yet doesn't feature the animals. Dora Nichov 00:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, but that's original research/synthesis. If it wasn't named in the program, it should not be named in the article about the program, period, except in a prose (not list) section discussing the relationship of each episode to the book. That would be ok, as long as the book is named and properly referenced as a footnote. Having a ist of names followed by "identified in book" is not appropriate for this kind of encyclopedia article. Having an actual prose section which says something like "blah blah blah...the cynodont was not identified by name in the program, though in a companion book, Walking with Dinosaurs the Book, the cynodonts were referred to as Thrinaxodon, despite the fact that Thrinaxodon remains are not known from North America.(cite for WWD book)(cite for Thrinaxodon location info)" Dinoguy2 02:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and there are some changes you keep reverting that are simply incorrect. WWD is not a documentary, which by definition and according to even the article on Wikipedia is used to document reality. WWD is made in the style of a documentary but is completely fictional (like Spinal Tap). It's actually a mockumentary, or fictional "documentary". Dinoguy2 02:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think you just solved the whole dispute, Dinoguy2. This is an excellent compromise. Jerkov 12:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I did a bit of cleaning. I haven't reverted the whole thing, but I still feel the animals identified in other sources should be listed as such. I've done things so that they look tidier and the article is shorter as well. Dora Nichov 02:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The edits you made did not address our comments--in fact, they seem to indicate either rejection of our problems or that you are not understanding them. If you would like to cite the book, how about a footnote? The animal on the show is NOT Thrinaxadon, for example, as has been explained to you over and over.Denn333 04:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well sure it's not Thrinaxodon, but I'm pretty sure the shark IS Hybodus and the bird IS Iberomesornis. Oh, plus you guys didn't even list the unidentified pterosaur in episode four. Dora Nichov 09:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, tell me, why CAN'T it be a Thrinaxodon? In the Triassic, all continents were pretty much connected, so Thrinaxodon could have been in North America as well. Remember that only a small percentage of animals become fossils, so just because we haven't found any fossils doesn't mean there weren't any. Dora Nichov 09:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Oh, tell me, why CAN'T it be a Thrinaxodon? In the Triassic, all continents were pretty much connected, so Thrinaxodon could have been in North America as well. Remember that only a small percentage of animals become fossils, so just because we haven't found any fossils doesn't mean there weren't any." That's original research. Jerkov 10:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be if I said "It's a Thrinaxodon because I say/think so!" But because the companion book, website AND encyclopedia identify it as Thrinaxodon, we should list it as such. Dora Nichov 12:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A. The web site clearly states that it is NOT a Thrinaxadon. You've been told this before, and you continue to insist on things that are NOT true. B. At this time, I need to ask you not to revert DinoGuy1's edits. You are ruining this article and causing problems for others.

Thanks, DoraNichov.

Denn333 20:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What is it about these prehisotric animals shows that brings out uncomprimising defenders of spurious fancruft and original research? This is getting to almost as bad as Prehistoric Park (one of my top 10 worst Wikipedia articles)... Dinoguy2 02:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO!! So Dinoguy2, your not just a hypocritical troll, your a liar as well. Their was no spurious fancruft and original research in Prehistoric Park, all my claims had in-episode citation which you even admitted at the time!! hence you shifted gears to fight on a subjective basis rather than a factual one. Yet here you are spindoctoring your failure and writing diatribes about what a horrible, dishonest, evil person I am! But then, your clearly an egomaniac so the idea that you where proved wrong must realy have eaten away at you. Nubula 04:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The website says it's not Thrinaxodon? Where? I thought it said it WAS Thrinaxodon. Besides, one exception doesn't count. The Iberomesornis, Steropodon, Hybodus, etc should be true though. And personally I think I made at least SOME good edits, like separating the animals only seen in the introduction and adding the unidentified pterosaurs to Giant Of The Skies.Dora Nichov

Dinoguy2... I suspect that these guys are hobbyists, mainly children, who no little about science and experience these films in a way that was not intended. DoraNichov himself, I think, is a child living in Taiwan, and takes great ownership of these articles. The only reason I stand by is because I came to these articles some time ago myself and could not make head or tail out of what I read. The hardest thing is that he simply does not understand the errors he makes. I chalk it up to immaturity and stubborness.

DoraNichov... I need to ask you to provide links for each time you you refer to a web resource. Embed the links properly. If you cannot cite your source, I'm going to have to question it as a false statement or original resource and revert such errors under Wikipedia rules. That is the compromise I am willing to make. Your other alternative is to put your speculation in as a footnote. Look at the the When Dinosaurs Roamed America article, which serves as an example of a well-written article about a similar film.

Do we have an understanding?Denn333 09:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A CHILD IN TAIWAN!? Lol lol. What nonsense. I'll bet you'll be guessing my age, name and appearance next right? Don't make stupid assumptions. If you read my usepage carefully, you'll see that I'm a fennec fox in the Sahara. OK, despite that relatively minor complaint, I have to admit that I actually agree with you for once. I shall add the links. Oh, I think you say that When Dinosaurs Roamed America is a good article because you wrote it. Though I'm not really blaming you 'cause that's human nature, and fennec fox nature for that matter. Maybe that's why I keep reverting. Still, I believe that at least some of my edit is good. Dora Nichov 12:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

May I point out that the species shown are real, so you cannot say it is completely fictional. The individual creatures though, usually are. 70.184.32.37 02:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A child in Taiwan? Ooh, do me next. I'm a super intelligent dromaeosaurid descendant from outer space that has advanced holographic technology to view articles from earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

More scientific criticism & critique required

This article urgently requires a section for scientific critique and criticism of the series since it is presented as a "documentary series" --inferring an acute and accurate reflection of actual events and occurances rather than caricatured interpretations.

At present, it sounds unlike a "documentary series" but another fan boy, love-piece; like unfortunetaely so many Wiki peices have become, which leave Wiki open to justified accusations of being a Wonki.

This, by the way, is not call for misguided Creationist cranks to attack this insertion. Stick to collaborative, easily verifable sciencific data.

I don't know that any scientific criticism has been published. It's just a TV show, which scientists understand, so they ignore it. I suppose you could dig up published sources that debunk each claim in the show individually, if you've got enough time on your hands. Many could probably be found cited here on Wikipedia already. A lot of it could be dismissed with a simple "however, there is no actual evidence for this", a nice way of saying "they made it up." Dinoguy2 09:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, a large percentage of paleontology involves guesswork. Dora Nichov 09:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually... well, to an extent. But the Walking With... series presents it as fact and doesn't address the numerous alternatives, which is very misleading. And some stuff is just plain made up, like the sauropod ovipositor. There's absolutely no reason to think sauropods layed eggs like sea turtles. Most of the behavioral stuff is simply based on random modern examples, not on any scientific evidence about the dinosaurs themselves (for example, the Liopleurodon jumping out of the water to catch prey, or the hypsilophodont social colony, or the symbiotic pterosaurs living on sauropod hides). Dinoguy2 13:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. No disclaimer. Dora Nichov 13:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Documentary?

Someone keeps changing the genre to documentary. I would point out that while WWD is filmed in the style of a documentary, it is not one. Here's the reason. You may be familiar with the book Raptor Red. Is this fiction, or non-fiction? Why? How about The Sun Also Rises. Fiction or non-fiction? Of course they're both fiction. Are they based on reality? Yes. Could they have really happened? Sure. Did they really happen? No. Now on to television. The Making of Walking With Dinosaurs - documentary or mockumentary? Walking With Dinosaurs - documentary or mocumentary? The first is a documentary. It documents in film a real life event: the production of this show. The events really happened and nothing is fictitious, or based solely on speculation/artistic license. The later is based entirely on artistic license informed by science. It's filmic paleoart. It is not a documentary. Dinoguy2 13:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

At this point I've always agreed with you and I promise it isn't I who keeps changing this. Dora Nichov 13:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's also possible the change just keeps getting lost in reverts I guess. Dinoguy2 14:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe. Dora Nichov 13:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't debate what you guys are saying here, but you should also realise that there are thousands of other so-called documentaries out there, which are simlar in style to WWD, but are as if not less accurate. It would only be fair change all these other documentaries. Singling out WWD and calling it mockumentary, a decidely belittling term if used for a documentary in its genre, is being unfair and unproductive. WWD was meant to be taken as entertainment and for representation of prehistoric life only. Everybody who enjoyed the show understands this. It was not meant to be factual and considered critically by professional paleontologists. Note that shows like Dinosaur Planet are currently described as documentaries. DannyLee9 18:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

They shouldn't be. And what's belittling about "mock"? It just means "false". There may be a better term, but calling something that's not only entirely scripted, but generated mostly in a computer, a documentary is just flat-out wrong. Dinoguy2 02:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Do as you like. Dora Nichov 00:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've found out about Thrinaxodon! Dora Nichov 11:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Mock v. To treat with scorn or contempt;deride ridicule." 10:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

From the Collins World English Dictionary: "mock: -vb 2. to imitate, esp in fun; mimic -adj 10. serving as an imitation or substitute, esp for practice purposes: a mock battle ; mock finals" 86.157.29.70 (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2012

More to the point, "A mockumentary or docucomedy is a type of film or television show depicting fictional events but presented as a documentary." (that's the Wikipedia definition.)

Scientific criticism & critique

Its been said that this article urgently requires a section for scientific critique and criticism of the series and as I'm home for the summer and I have the time on my hands to debunk each claim in the show individually. So is their enough support for this hypothetical section? if their isn't I won't waste my time. Nubula 00:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

given the lack of reply I'll take this as a no. Nubula 02:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There should totally be one. Wish I knew how to. Earfetish1 (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be original research. Unless somebody has published a scientific critique we can site, it would be inappropriate to include one, unless it was very carefully worded. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

This user has walked with the dinosaurs.

Add {{User:Cuddly Panda/Userboxes/WWD}} to your userpage. ----- Cuddly Panda (talk · contribs) 01:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Unidentified creature in episode six

I wonder what the dead creature that the T.rex scavanges in episode six is. I cannot think of a carnivorous dinosaur from that time and place. I read here that someone suggested it was a young Tyrannosaur. this does not make sense because in WWD Tyrannosaurus is shown as being a blackish colour, even the hatchlings. the creature seems to be a greenish colour.

The theropod carcass is a re-use of the polar allosaur puppet from Spirits of the Ice Forest and thus does not conform to any real-life animal from Late Cretaceous North America. Mammal carcass in the same scene is a feral common brushtail possum that are now common in North Island, New Zealand where the scene was shot.Ozraptor4 (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I thought I saw a dead small mammal in that scene too. Dora Nichov 09:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have also seen that mammal but I saw a skeleton as well. the dead creatures seem to be physical models, not CGI ones which means that some effort was expended in thier construction and transport. If anyone can contact the guys who did the props and puppets for WWD maybe they could shed some light on these dead creatures. As for the mystery animal in episode four, I have no idea. 196.208.78.150 14:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 16:01 (CAT) August 2007

This would be interesting, but is also the most basic definition of OR and could not be used in the article until published in some outside source... Dinoguy2 17:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What ep. four mystery animal? And yeah, that's an idea about the carcasses... Dora Nichov 14:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant mystereypterosaur. you know, the one that the ornithocheirus steals a fish from.

sorry, I meant mysterey PTEROSAUR. you know, the one the ornithocheirus steals a fish from. dsungaripterus?196.208.82.26 17:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Different crest. Hmmm... Dora Nichov 14:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. But if it isn't dsungaripterus then what is it? and didn't a similar pterosaur appear in episode 5? Oh, and sorry for the double answer, my computer was a bit unruly.196.208.78.67 18:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My guess is it's a hypothetical restoration of something known from very scrappy remains that hasn't been given a name. Dinoguy2 00:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The ep. 5 pterosaurs didn't have a crest. They are exactly what Dinoguy said. No idea about ep. 4 though. Dora Nichov 13:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Dinoguy is probably right. In walking with... there are often creatures that are based on fragmentary remains.For example the "enteledont" in walking with beasts is NOT Enteledon, it is in fact a generic creature based on fragmentary fossils(Enteledon is not known from mongolia) . Meanwhile scan the talk pages for basilosaurus, sea monsters and WWM/WWB. I may be there. 196.208.76.68 15:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's Entelodon. The encyclopedia says so. Dora Nichov 09:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. That's strange. I remember reading on the ABC walking with beasts website that it was based on fragmentary evidence. Maybe I'm wrong. Still, that doesn't mean that the pterosaurs aren't still based on some fragmentary evidence. same with the "polar allosaur".196.208.80.233 14:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Those two are indeed based on a few shattered fossils. They haven't even been named yet. Dora Nichov 00:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But how do they know its an allosaur? It could be something totally differant.T.Neo 14:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It could be but maybe so far evidence points to it being an allosaur. Dora Nichov 02:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

By allosaur they mean allosauroid. It has certain characters only seen in that family. My bet is that if and when it's descibed, it'll turn out to be a primitive carcharodontosaurid, based on age and location. But it may never be named or even described, depending on how incomplete the remains are. Back in the old days, scientists would name every scrap of bone or stray tooth, which is why we have so many useless nomina dubia today. Modern scientists are smarter about it: Darren Naish even refused to officially name "Angloposeidon", and it's remains weren't that bad. I can assure you those pterosaur remains will never get a name. We'll just have to wat for something reasonably complete to turn up. Whether or not the scrappy stuff comes from the same animal as hypothetical new remains will be impossible to tell because they're non-diagnostic. Just look at the problem with Titanosaurus. Dinoguy2 02:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Dora Nichov 03:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Carcharodontosaurid? You may be right. I remember the narrator saying something to the effect of: most allosaurs died out in the jurassic but these survive close to the south pole. I would have cut this out because of the doubt around this creature and (like in the american version) given it a generic name. T.Neo 10:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I was reading through the argintinasaurus talk page when I came across some guy who had said (some time back) that argintinasaurus had to be aquatic for it's weight to be supported. I cannot belive that he thinks that. T.Neo 12:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

hello? anyone?196.208.82.227 11:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Aquatic sauropods? Wow... that's like REALLY obsolete, it's scientific consensus sauropods lived on land. Dora Nichov 12:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly my point! I isn't mechanically feasible, it's lungs would implode and it's neck wouldn't be able to move to a vertical position. T.Neo 18:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Its neck didn't move in the vertical position, only Brachiosaurus, Camarasaurus, etc did. Dora Nichov (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Even that has come under fire recently. I doubt that any sauropod could move its neck verticlly. (I went to a lecture where Paul Sereno argued this case for Nigersaurus). but some sauropods had a posture that would have elevated the neck. The heavier camarasaurus tooth ware is evidence that they ate tougher food (conifar needles??). T.Neo (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wws.jpg

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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Driven to Distraction

Has anyone else noticed the number of times Kenneth Brannagh's commentary uses the expressions "driven to..."? Actually a serious point, as the one weakness of the series is the sloppy writing of the narration. For example, the repeated descripton that "X has evolved Y" in a way that suggests it is a deliberate act by the creature in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.6.17 (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you're right. The narrator often uses the phrase "driven to". T.Neo (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That's probably just an anthropomorphic and simplified way to describe it. Saying "through evolution by natural selection X's forearms have become longer" is a little confusing to the average viewer. That's also why they say "X's teeth are perfectly designed for...."- it's not meant to imply intelligent design, but to make it easier to understand for those of us who aren't huge dinosaur nerds. Jerkov (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The Next Chapter

What happened to it. Rodimus Rhyme (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Two Extra episodes?

What's with the "Carnivore Clash" and "Menacing Predator" episodes listed on the page, they sound convincing, but are they even real episodes?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.64.121 (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Fake. Carnivore Clash is probably plain made up, the other is a "slightly" edited version of White Tip's Journey from another (unrelated) series, Dinosaur Planet. Dora Nichov (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted it, but the article still needs a lot of cleanup. It seems to have gone through a bunch of misc. vandalism lately. Dora Nichov (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The episode description for "Giant of the Skies" was vandalised, replacing Ornithocheirus with Spinosaurus for some reason, and the description "Spirits of the Ice Forest" was completely wrong. The actual episode focussed on the leaellynasaura, not the Allosaur. I've changed both sections, but there are probably more that need cleanup. 125.238.134.114 (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've found the culprit. IP address 4.244.24.131 has been editing the plot summaries to include completely wrong information, with this as an example. I sent him a warning about it, just asking him to stop. 125.238.134.114 (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed (and in some cases undid) similar recent vandalism on "Prehistoric Park", "Walking with Monsters", "When Dinosaurs Roamed America", "Dinosaur Planet", "The Future is Wild" and other CGI natural history documentary entries. Someone using a variety of IP addresses is adding fake episodes (either completely fabricated or pasted from other series), fake taxa/taxa from other series or rewriting the plot summaries to include fake fight scenes.136.154.22.60 (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Create a disambiguation page?

I think there should be "Walking with Dinosaurs (documentary series)" (or TV series or whatever) and a "Walking with Dinosaurs: The Live Experience" and both should be listed in a "Walking with Dinosaurs" disambiguation page. Doing a Google Search seems to yield results that indicate that the live performance is more popular at the moment, but the primary redirect from the disambiguation page is something that can be debated.

Thoughts?

Someone made a fake story for the second episode.

Someone made a fake story for the second episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.86.130 (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Live Experience: What technology?

Does anyone have a citable source describing the precise technology being used in the "Live Experience" shows? The official web site for the performances is totally useless on this point, as far as I can tell. A discussion (or at least a mention) of the technology in use would, in my opinion, be essential for a proper rewrite of the current "advertisement" about the live show. Richwales (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like they used animatronics. [1] [2] [3] Hopefully these sources will be useful to someone who has the time to rewrite the existing "advertisement" section into something a bit more encyclopedic. Richwales (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Coelophysis

I'm pretty sure coelophysis is an antagonist, not a protagonist... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.73.194 (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I mean the ceolophysis show how their life was back then.--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Postosuchus was the main antagonist in episode 1. Besides, the program is called "Walking with Dinosaurs", and Coelophysis is the only true dinosaur in the episode that appears for more than 40 seconds.--User:Dinolover45 12:19, April 3, 2010

Using terms like 'protagonist' and 'antagonist' about an animal documentary is pretty (extremely) anthropomorphic, isn't it? There are no 'good guys' and 'bad guys' in nature. Even articles extremely cute-ified anthropomorphic documentary shows like Meerkat Manor don't use language like that. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that Postosuchus was a "bad guy", I was just using the word "antagonist" to say that it is a threat to the main animal. But yeah, maybe the word "antagonist" is a bit extreme, these animals need to hunt to survive. It's the law of the jungle.--User:Dinolover45 23:36, April 3 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC).

I realise this is a two-year-old discussion and no-one cares any more, but protagonist and antagonist actually don't mean good guy and bad guy. Dinolover's use is pretty accurate - the protagonist is just the principle character, regardless of alignment, and an antagonist is just a character that opposes the protagonist's actions. Though I'm not necessarily arguing to have the words in the article - apart from anything else, they're frequently misunderstood. CarrieVS (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

CSI appearance?

Is it worth including that WWD appears in CSI (Las Vegas) Season 11 episode 6? (Title: Cold Blooded) - IMDB link: Hobedits (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the series, not the live adaptation. As cool as I thought that show was when I saw it, it's completely overshadowed the original BBC documentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

References

220,000,000 BC versus 220 million years ago.

I wonder why BBC used the "Before Christ" for moments millions of years ago, who doubts whether is was BC or AD? Furthermore a dating with an accuracy of one year is beyond most dating methods. But obviously BBC can decide for themselves that their story began 220,000,000 BC at 08:48 p.m. But should Wikipedia follow this atypical "220,000,000 BC", instead of the more typical "220 million years ago"? Or is it preserved in order to show the level of Walking with Dinosaurs? --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody argues, I'll change it. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

More reader-friendly

The text is full of lesser known animals, so in order to make it more reader-friendly I'll suggest that 'shark', 'bird', 'pterosaur' etc. are added. I know that the names are hyperlinked but it's tedious to click all the time. The article is called "Walking with Dinosaurs" so the dinosaurs don't need a 'dinosaur' prefix. They could have 'carnivore', 'herbivore' etc. unless it's obvious from the beginning. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody argues, I'll change it. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Raptor red's recent edits

I just removed a few edits made by User:Raptor red. I was not able to verify any of them, and several were dubious.

1. All carnivores tend to cannibalize. This seems patently false. Many carnivores have no record of cannibalism. -
2. Insufficient budget to get feathers - uncited -
3. "But the show probably meant that Ornithocheirus was the largest pterosaur ever known in the Early Cretaceous." Original research, speculation. -
4. "But Prosauropod tracks were found in New Mexico. So the show may not be inaccurate." Unable to verify, relevance not clear in context.
5. "If that's true, then Liopleurodon probably grew throughout it's whole life." Appears to be original research. -

Thoughts, comments, citations, or rebuttals? --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Well, what about lions and apes? As well as other cats? Raptor Red (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
2. I learned this from a friend on a now closed Zoo Tycoon fansite called Caldera Unlimited. The guys there were experts on paleontology. Raptor Red (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Are you sure about that? Raptor Red (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Haven't you read the article Archosaurs of the Chinle Formation? Raptor Red (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Well, crocodiles and alligators do the same. Raptor Red (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I took the liberty of reorganizing the discussion (we try not to interrupt other people's comments with our own). Hopefully the enumeration will help. Let me first note the policy on original research--even if you're pretty sure something should be true, unless there's a verifiable, reliable source for the information, we can't include it. In the specifics:

1. You're correct that some do, but your claim was all "tend" to. I can think of dozens of examples of animals which do not cannibalize (or I should say, extremely rarely, since even humans cannibalize sometimes... they just don't make a habit of it). You will need a citation to a biology book or similar reliable source which supports your statement.
2. Alas I don't think a fansite, no matter how well visited, is likely to be a reliable source. I know lots of experts in my field as well, but I can't use quotes from them as sources either. Although there are sources on the internet which can be used, the quality should be that of a book or journal article.
3. I'm afraid the onus is on you to demonstrate your contribution is not original research. I'm sure you can see how a situation where someone adds content then challenges people to prove them wrong would make for a difficult encyclopedia. If the show really meant that, you will need to find someone claiming such in a reliable source.
4. I will admit some confusion here. I don't see how claiming prosauropods/Sauropodomorphs were found in North America meaningfully supports the claim that Plateosaurus were in North America. There were certainly sauropodomorphs in North America (including the recent specimen Seitaad ruessi), but it is is not clear if plateosaurus specifically was here. Evidence suggests, as noted in the article, that it was not.
5. Plenty of animals grow throughout their lives. However your inference from the show appears to be original research.

Thanks again, --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Raptor Red, I've told you before that simply saying something is so does not make it so. Furthermore, you keep engaging in inappropriate synthesis of information: unless you have a reputable source that supports your claims, you can not make wild claims simply to support whatever Walking With Dinosaurs said. For example, simply because there were prosauropods in North America does not automatically mean that Plateosaurus was in North America. That, and you can not protect your claims by telling me or other editors to "do not delete my information" if you have no ability or intention to verify your claims with appropriate, reliable references.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the idea that Coelophysis cannibalized its own young was based on the original interpretation of the bones of a juvenile in the abdominal region of an adult being that the adult ate the juvenile prior to dying. Because the juvenile's bones lacked characteristic signs of being digested, the fossil was later reappraised an adult having toppled over a juvenile as the whole herd was being buried beneath a mudslide. Having said that, simply saying that some other animals cannibalize their young is not evidence for Coelophysis cannibalizing its young.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Further-furthermore, the bones in the abdominal region of the famous cannibal adult are not even from a baby Coelophysis, or even dinosaurian. Nesbitt et al. 2006 (Biol letters) demonstrated that they are from a small crocodylomorph archosaur.Ozraptor4 (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't mean Coelophysis wasn't a cannibal: some of the individuals may have had some of the young Coelophysis they ate digested. And take Majunagsaurus: it's been known to eat it's own kind. And bears, lions, wolves, tigers, meerkats, and coyotes have been known to eat the young of their own kind. So please don't say it's original research. And syaing that Ornithocheirus was the largest pterosaur in the Early Cretaceous is also not original research!!! Stop saying that it's original when it isn't, even if it's proven that it's no longer true!!! Raptor Red (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You still refuse to understand that the evidence that was originally used to support the claim that Coelophysis was a cannibal no longer supports that claim (on two counts, in fact). As such, there is no longer any evidence to support making the definite claim that it was a cannibal. Furthermore, claiming that Walking with Dinosaurs was correct in portraying Coelophysis as a cannibal because "everyone else does it," without actually providing any reputable source, is original research and synthesis.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

And the reason why Raptor Red's edits are still being reverted is because the edits are still either speculation, original research or inappropriate synthesis.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've protected this article for the weekend to prevent further edit warring. Since it appears all other parties are discussing the changes, I will leave a note on RR's talk page and encourage him to re-join this discussion before making any other edits. Kuru (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing I've been thinking about with these Walking With pages, maybe we should just get rid of the inaccuracies sections? Most of it is unsourced, and what isn't is synthesis at best (none of the sources used refer specifically to the series). Would eliminate pointless edit wars as well. In any case, Raptor Red should refrain from adding unsourced text into the article, but seems like the protection has taken care of this. FunkMonk (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, a great deal of the information presented in the Walking With series is incorrect or distorted, and I feel such mistakes should be pointed out. On the other hand, perhaps we should incorporate such things either directly into the article, or on the pages of the species mentioned in the series?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If we could get more stuff like this[4], there wouldn't be a problem, because it refers to the series specifically. But maybe such text could go into the description of each episode? FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 174.48.33.49, 20 March 2011

{{edit protected}} Add another featue about remake

174.48.33.49 (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've had enough!!!

Alright, that's it, I've had it with you destroying my accurate edits and claiming them to be original research when in reality, most of them were not!!!!

And three people that don't come from this wikia agree with me!!!

Here's the parts that aren't really inaccurate:

Coelophysis, cynodonts, and Ophthalmosaurus not being cannibals: Almost all types of carnivores occasionally eat the young of their own kind!!! And these guys were no different!!! And just because the fossils weren't of baby Coelophysis doesn't mean Coelophysis was a cannibal: that's how predators work!

Ornithocheirus was said to be the largest pterosaur, but they really meant of the Early Cretaceous!!!

No feathers: At the time, feathers weren't really accepted although they were proposed.

And no offense but all of the three guys I talked with agreed on this: When it comes to prehistoric life, you are all idiots!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptor Red (talk • contribs) 03:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:WQA. Time for a block.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You still don't source your stuff, RR, it doesn't matter if it is original research or not if there are no references. FunkMonk (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

He's been blocked for a week. He sort of went of the deep end of anger last night. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate?

Would this Amazon review make a decent source? Funny, I always learned that dinosaurs were reptiles... 70.80.215.121 (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Even if we could use it, the review itself is filled with inaccuracies. Sauropods didn't lay eggs? That idea has been dead since the 80s. And I didn't know there was an evil pro-mammal, anti-reptile movement apparently. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, this is true. And Placerias and Postosuchus weren't cold-blooded, that I'll give Rancor credit for. But this was never critically stated in the program, and their speed is not a way to indicate this. Don't expect a warm-blooded sloth to break any speed limits anytime soon. 70.80.215.121 (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a single claim made in that review is remotely accurate... MMartyniuk (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, he was right about sauropod herds and pterosaur wings and partly right about Dromaeosaurus (all dromaeosaurs had squarish heads? Okay, then...). But that's about it. 70.80.215.121 (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The upper part of the skulls of some of the best known dromaeosaurs aren't even known, Deinonychus, Utahraptor and Dromaeosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Velociraptor's skull looks like it belongs on a mutant ornithomimid. Worse yet, he said that all dromaeosaurs had squarish heads when he was distinguishing Dromaeosaurus from Deinonychus!70.80.215.121 (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Paleontological Inaccuracies

I've marked this section as being original research, more specifically original synthesis. This is because alleged inaccuracies in the series are being cited from sources that do not actually refer to the TV series. What is being said in the article is effectively;

• A - Walking with Dinosaurs said/depicted this. = Uncited fact
• B - This source here says this. = Cited fact from another source that doesn't mention A.
• C - Therefore they disagree and Walking with Dinosaurs is inaccurate. = a conclusion based by synthesising A + B, and is not in the sources supplied for either.

The problem with synthesis like this is that there is no way of verifying that the synthesis of A + B is accurate, fair or relevant. Perhaps A and B are in fact discussing two very similar, but different, things that only an expert could differentiate between. Perhaps comparing A with B is an invalid comparison that in fact does not indicate any disagreement between the two. Is it comparing apples and oranges? Perhaps the conclusion reached is mistaken, perhaps A is correct and it is B that is wrong, and only an expert can determine this. The fact that A is uncited doubles the risk of error, as perhaps the contributing editor's interpretation of what they saw/heard on Walking with Dinosaurs is mistaken.

These are all good reasons why synthesis isn't allowed on Wikipedia.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As there appears to be no objections or further input I am proceeding with removing the original research. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No evidence equals inaccuracy

Just because there's "no evidence" for these things doesn't mean they aren't true. Thinking that dinosaurs would have lived according to what future creatures didn't see from fossils is foolish. Would you people reconstruct Deinocheirus as a pair of arms floating over the Cretaceous plains just because these are the only parts we know from the animal.

I also don't understand why people think Oviraptor didn't eat eggs just because some fossil shows a mother Oviraptor sitting on her eggs. Do you really think an animal would eat its own eggs. That would completely obliterate the next generation and the animal would become extinct practically the moment it evolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. If the evidence points to the contrary of the show's portrayals, then it's an inaccuracy.99.252.226.153 (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Adam99.252.226.153 (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

BC or million years ago

I ran to a small problem about the time dating. I think that would be better if we use BC and not the million years ago in dating the time periods of the series, because this version is much, much comprehensive. Just for example: the last episode of the series is set around 65 million years ago, but some people don't see (or just don't want to see) that little half million years in the dating. So that would be much better if we write it as 65.500.000 BC (as the series did) and not 65.5 million years ago. And so too the other dates (220.000.000 BC, 152.000.000 BC, ...) and the same in Walking with Beasts (3.200.000 BC, 1.000.000 BC, 30.000 BC, ...). And there is Primeval (which IS the part of the Walking with.. series, but not directly of course) which have to use AD for the future creatures and the dodos. So we can give that they lived in 1.600 AD, 10.000 AD and not 10.000 years in the future and the others.

And there's an another problem. I think we can not be internal links of the periods with late and early words (just the time period of course: Triassic, Jurassic and Creataceous), because that's just a concept and not a scientific designation. That words just shows that the dinosaurs lived closer to the beginning or closer to the ending of a period. So in that form there's just two words for the periods are existing: "early" and "late" (the series also use this). So there is no "middle", Mississippian and the other ages. The upper, middle and lower words (they're some places called as late, middle and early; I mean them for the named ages too, like Pennsylvanian, Mississippian) are use in geography, shows an age from given date to date.

I know this is not a big problem, but some people don't prefer it. --CamoBeast (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The minuscule difference of 2000+ years is negligible here. Even when people read Wikipedia in hundred years, the BC/million years ago-difference will be lesser than the margin of error of the dating. It reminds me of the story about the pupil who insisted on that Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion and one year ago - because last year the teacher said it occurred 13.7 billion years ago.

In geology periods are divided in epochs, e.g. Triassic is divided in Early Triassic (251 - 245 mya), Middle Triassic (245 - 228 mya) and Late Triassic (228 - 199 mya). The epochs are scientific designations, not "just a concept". "Early" and "late" are used in geochronology, which is about time. "Upper" and "lower" are used in chronostratigraphy, which is about rock strata. "Middle" is used in both disciplines. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why you are using initial capitals for "Million Years Ago", there is no reason for that. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If we using initial capital for "Late" and "Early" it look better if we use for "Million Years Ago" too. --CamoBeast (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It is mandatory to write 'Early Triassic', 'Late Jurassic', 'American', 'North America', 'October', Monday', 'BC', 'AD' etc., not because it looks better but because it's good grammatical English. "Million Years Ago" is not a pronoun, so "million years ago" is correct. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but I said before that the series don't use "early" and "late" as a scientific term in geochronology, because in the other series, for example in Walking with Monsters, there is "Late Permian". And you says "late" is an epoch, and there is no epoch called Late Permian in geochronology, but there is an epoch called Lopingian (this is the real name of late Permian). So Late Permian in geochronology isn't exist. Look at the Geologic time scale page. So Late Permian and therefore the others are have to be just a term, "just a concept". I hope now you understand why is the better if we use initial capitals in "Million Years Ago" and "Late" and "Early" too. --CamoBeast (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You've almost understood it right. If you've discovered that the last Permian epoch is called "Lopingian", then "late Permian" is informal, hence the lower-case letters in "late". Formal names use upper-case initial letters like "Late Jurassic". "Late" isn't limited to epochs; e.g. late Precambrian [5] means 'closer to the end of Precambrian', i.e. "just a concept". So 'late' can be prefixed as an informal name, meaning 'closer to the end of..'. In theory "late Late Jurassic" could be used, meaning 'closer to the end of the epoch Late Jurassic', but I've never seen it ;-)

If you can't find e.g. "Late Permian" in the Geologic time scale page, then feel free to change Walking with Monsters to "late Permian" as it's informal. "Early Cambrian" is on the list, so it's formal.

I've failed to see why "Million Years Ago" should be with upper-case initial letters. Similar to "Five Pounds Heavy", "Ten Feet Long", "In Black Colour"... Good grammatical English is "million years ago". --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

According to "Glossary of Geology, 4th edition, American Geological Institute publications 1997, ISBN 0-922152-34-9": "[late] Pertaining to or occurring near the end of a segment of time. The adjective is applied to the name of a geologic-time unit (era, period, epoch) to indicate relative time designation and corresponds to upper as applied to the name of the equivalent time-stratigraphic unit; e.g. rocks of an Upper Jurassic batholith were intruded in Late Jurassic time. The initial letter of the term is capitalized to indicate a formal subdivision (e.g. "Late Devonian") and is set in lower case to indicate an informal subdivision (e.g. "late Miocene"). The informal term may be used for eras and epochs, and for periods where there is no formal subdivision."

"Million Years Ago" has no look-up in the book, but: "[Ma] Abbreviation for mega-annum (10⁶ years); a million years. Informal S.I. notation, where annum is age in years before present, polarized from 1950. This term has largely replaced the various abbreviations for "millions of years before present" in geological literature. It is not equivalent to the quantity "millions of years" ("m.y." or "Myr")." --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reformatted the episode list using the appropriate Template:Episode list, incorporating the ABC reference links that were at the head as well. I added a column for "Era", using the abbreviation "mya" for "million years ago". This may not be the latest style, which as you note, is "Ma", but is still commonly used (see Year#Symbols y and yr) and probably more easily understood by most readers. Barsoomian (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice work Barsoomian. So it was you Martians, who released dinosaurs to the environment ;-) BTW I don't like the use of "Era", since eras in geology are time units of well defined length, such as for example the Mesozoic era from 251–65.5 million years ago. I took the liberty of replacing it with "Time". --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"Time" is fine, though it doesn't have that prehistoric association "era" does. Couldn't think of anything better that wasn't too long-winded. Barsoomian (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Scientific inaccuracies: Liopleurodon

I think the 'Scientific inaccuracies' section could include something about Liopleurodon, which was depicted as much bigger than is accurate. (based on a similar sort of evidence to Ornithocheirus, which is mentioned - seems they made a habit of it!) It's mentioned on the Liopleurodon page, with citation.

What do people think?CarrieVS (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

See discussions above. "Inaccuracies" should only be mentioned in the article if they have been noted by a recognised authority and this can be cited, as the ones there now, cited to Michael J. Benton. Your own observations are original research which is against policy. Barsoomian (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not my own observations. I did notice it, but as I said, there's citation for it where it's mentioned in the Liopleurodon page. Unless it shouldn't be mentioned because it's on that page? Oops, forgot to sign it. Not used to this yet.CarrieVS (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but the citation is to a self-published website, which isn't usually considered a reliable source. Can "Richard Forrest" be shown to be an authority? He appears to be an architect. But if you go ahead and use a similar format and citation as as at Liopleurodon it would probably stand. Barsoomian (talk) 06:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I don't have any experience at this, so I just supposed that it was a good enough source since it's been (so far as I can see) unchallenged on the other page. I might try and look for a better source. Thanks for discussing it. CarrieVS (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

At least you have a source; it may be good enough, I'm not an expert. If you look at the history of this and similar pages, you find it full of people inserting their own commentary and critiques, so I reflexively look at such with a jaundiced eye. Criticisms can be reported, but not the editors' own opinions and conclusions. Barsoomian (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I've found another source: although it is also self-published, the author of this one has pretty good credentials as a pliosaur expert. Shame about the Richard Forrest one, because it has more information. But that's life. I've gone ahead and added it, keeping to what the new source says (although I'm not sure if I did the citation right/well). Feel free to edit it if you think it could be better, and if anyone finds a better source, please cite it. CarrieVS (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Formatting

This is just my opinion, which i know probably doesn't count for much, but isn't the formatting on this page a bit odd? Shouldn't episode listing/descriptions be before all of the sections (excluding the overview) that are currently ahead of it? Darthvadek (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

One consideration is that if the episode list is at the top, it bumps against the infobox on the right side. Either there is a big white space above it or the table has to be compressed into a narrower space. See this version for instance. That's why I reordered it. Many TV articles have the episode list towards the end, or even in a separate article if it's long. Barsoomian (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. That seems reasonable. Darthvadek (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Creator(s)

The BBC never originally credited Tim Haines as a Creator of the original series - just as Series Producer [6]. That's how he's credited in all press reports in the years following. If creators are to be listed, that list should include Susan Spindler, described by the then-Director General of the BBC as a co-creator of this series and others: [7] Muglug (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

International broadcast

I'm actually pretty sure that the show in it's german version was first shown on the Austrian channel ORF 1. --2A02:120B:2C3D:6340:225:FF:FE3D:159E (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

What were the original broadcast dates in the UK?

On this article it show the broadcast dates in the UK as weekly starting on 16th April 1999 (a Friday incidentally). On imdb (see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0214382/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_dt_dt ) it shows the series as having started on 4th October 1999 (a Monday) in the UK and starting in the US on 16th April 2000 (a Sunday), so have the UK and US dates been combined in a sort of hyrbid date for each episode. The reason I spotted this is I'm researching a piece about the weekly tv ratings winners in the UK through time, and Walking With Dinosaurs topped the charts twice (albeit due to the combining of the viewing figures for a Monday showing and a Sunday repeat, a rule of compilation used by BARB for many years that caused most weeks to be won by either Coronation Street or Eastenders, as they tended to be the only big shows being repeated within the same TV week) in 1999, in the weeks ending 10th November and 24th November, which at first I was thinking was a repeat run, but now I think it's the dates that are wrong on here. See www.barb.co.uk and select the Top 30 for the correct weeks to see my source for this. Finally I would suggest that in general the most expensive new series in the UK are usually shown in the all important autumn(fall) season, so it seems unusual if the April/May dates are correct. MrDannyDoodah (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I also noticed it. Corrected to 4 Oct 1999 - 8 Nov 1999. FivePillarPurist (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that IMDB isn't a reliable source (since it's user edited), so I wouldn't trust it. Harryhenry1 (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Changed to bbc.co.uk. FivePillarPurist (talk) 06:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a much better source! Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The "arena spectacular" section

As awesomely fantastic it is to list the countries in which it's toured, maybe we could get some idea as to what it is. I'm under the assumption that it's a bunch of big robots walking around, but I can't tell from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.7.197 (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts

As is probably evident, this documentary series is dated in many ways - its classification of Tropeognathus and Tupandactylus navigans under Ornithocheirus and Tapejara; Dakotadon being identified as a North American Iguanodon; and the probably-Australovenator talus being the basis for the "polar allosaur". Although it's fairly clear that the latter, obsolete taxon names/identifications are no longer the prevailing usage, they were identified as such in the original documentary. Thus, I feel that this should be noted within the article (i.e. within the "plot summary" section), with the "modern" names being supplemented by citations from either the BBC or the literature that demonstrates the applicability of the new names. Not sure how this would logistically work out - open to suggestions.

A somewhat troublesome issue that I have also noted: the identification of taxa contains many instances of original research: in no BBC sources that I have found have the horseshoe crabs from episode 3 been identified as Mesolimulus, for example; same deal with the "North American Polacanthus" representing Hoplitosaurus in episode 4, and the unnamed ornithopod from episode 6 representing Thescelosaurus. Even if these sources did, hypothetically, exist, these identifications would be unjustified without being cited. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

As for the latter part of the question, I think anything unsourced can just be removed on sight. But that brings us to the first question; if we want to "correct" errors in the series, we need to use sources that deal with the series, otherwise we will end up with WP:Synth/WP:OR issues. I think we'd be hard pressed to find a WWD related source that states "taxon x is not called y today" etc. The article already does this, by mentioning Dakotadon, which wasn't even named in 1999, so there is certainly an issue to deal with. I think the best solution would be to link to full binomials (if sources mention these) instead of just genus names, then we can be more specific with what we link to, instead of just wastebasket names. For example, Ornithocheirus mesembrinus will link to Tropeognathus. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

animal lists missing

Hasn't anyone noticed the animal lists for "Giant of the Skies" and "Spirits of the Ice Forest" are missing? Visokor (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I repeat: Someone plz fix the animal lists for "Giant of the Skies" and "Spirits of the Ice Forest"! They're not showing up on the article! Visokor (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I see you already fixed it. WP:Be bold. FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

By removing the flatlist parts. For some reason, they made the animal lists for the episodes in question invisible...Visokor (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Giants of the Skies - 0rnithocheirus or Tropeognathus

The episode mentions several times that the main story is of an 0rnithocheirus; is there a reason the article says that it's a Tropeognathus? Emika22 (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems a bit unnecessary; where that species in question (mesembrinus) belongs to depends on which researcher you ask (Mark Witton still calls it 0rnithocheirus in his 2013 book and blog[8]), so we should just stick to the name given in the series. FunkMonk (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Lavalizard101 might want to have a look here regarding Tropeognathus/Ornithocheirus. FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Walking with Dinosaurs. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130423121729/http://walkingwithdinosaurs-theorigins.com/ to http://walkingwithdinosaurs-theorigins.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130423121729/http://walkingwithdinosaurs-theorigins.com/ to http://walkingwithdinosaurs-theorigins.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 03:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)