Talk:Walking with...

Mesothelae
Does anyone know why they chose to use the name "Mesothelae" when Megarachne was found to be a eurypterid? It's somewhat odd, because when it was considered aranean it was thought to be a mygalomorph spider, not a mesothelan one. Orcoteuthis (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Allosaurus
Since most paleontologists think Saurophagnax and Epanterias ARE Allosaurus subspecies, the note in the errors section should be under a trivia section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.24.221.83 (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Bistahievavor was the ancestor, not Albertosaurus
That is true. But Prehistoric Park had been made in 2006, and had no way of predicting Bistahievavor's coming. I think the note in the 'Errors' section should be deleted. and why are Prehistoric Park's errors even here? Prehistoric Park is not a spin-off (if it was, the T-rex, Arthropleura, Deinosauchus and Smilodon models would have remained the same) of the WWD series, even if it employs similar techniques. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.24.221.83 (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It is definitely true for the T. rex and Deinosuchus. But I'd say the Smilodon and Arthropleura models were close enough. Let us not forget the woolly mammoth remains virtually unchanged in Prehistoric Park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.137.134 (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, Triceratops looks different as well, and no, I am not thinking of Torosaurus. Remember, an adult male T-rex kills a Triceratops, you only get to see its carcass but it looks nothing like the living animals seen in Prehistoric Park. Seriously, though, Prehistoric Park isn't even BBC, how on Earth could it be a spin-off. It would make more sense to say that Primeval is a spin-off series as it is actually BBC (although Primeval is pure fiction while the Walking With... series and Prehistoric Park are based on facts.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.169.168 (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ornithocherirus
I changed the Ornithocheirus size thing in Paleontological Innacuracies, next time i visit the article, its been reverted back to saying Quetzalcoatlus is larger. I looked at the articles for both, Wikipedia itself give Ornithocheirus a wingspan of 40, and Quetzalcoatlus, only 39. Therefore, i will edit the page again and do not want to see it changed back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.24.40 (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to check the proper scientific literature as wikipedia is not a definitive source as well you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenticulina (talk • contribs) 15:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides, the program never even said that Ornithocheirus is THE largest pterosaur. In Death of a Dynasty", it is clearly stated that Quetzalcoatlus had a wingspan of 13 metres, while Ornithocheirus'' is said to have a 12-metre wingspan. What's the big difference between 39 and 40 feet anyway, different sources have different ideas. My opinion is that the two pterosaurs were probably about the same size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.137.134 (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Prehistoric Planet
You know, I'm been thinking about Prehistoric Planet. It's not really part of a series, but more of a spin-off kind'a. Because the Trilogy of Life consits of Walking with Dino..., Walking with Beasts, and Monsters not Prehistoric Planet. --4444hhhh (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Stranger still, Wikipedia seems to conside Prehistoric Park a spin-off when it is in fact a completely separate programme.210.24.221.83 (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Bruhathkayosaurus
This genus is founded on very scrappy and poorly described material - many dino-workers doubt it was a sauropod, or even animal, at all. Asserting as a fact that it was the biggest sauropod is unjustified. I'll take the liberty of toning down the language a bit. Orcoteuthis (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Argentinosaurus is the biggest well-known dinosaur. Brut. is only known from some fragmentary remains and its size is a mere estimate, while Amphicoelus is known from a single vertabrae, subsequently lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalraptor (talk • contribs) 22:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too. As far as most of us are concerned, there is too little of Bruhatkayosaurus and nothing of Amphicoelius, I think that the note shoukd be deleted entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.24.221.83 (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wishful Thinking and Apologetics
We can not think up scenarios that would justify the artistic license and sloppy research done for Walking with series. We can not suggest that Utahraptor may have been able to cross two seas or go by way of Alaska and Asia to reach Europe, especially since no fossils of Utahraptor have been found outside of Colorado. The same thing for Pangaea: just because everybody lived on the same supercontinent does not mean that everyone would have lived in the same region. The regions of Siberia and South Africa were very different even 250 million years ago, and there is no evidence found that suggests that the fauna of Permian South Africa migrated from one end of Pangaea to the other.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The guidebook gave its reasoning (Iguaodon and Polacantus were found in both Europe and the Americas), which is fairly reasonable. All the more why half the 'errors' are arguable and be put under a trivia section.210.24.221.83 (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

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 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) 03:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Next Chapter
I saw the next chapter on TV. It really shouldn't be a separate "walking with", its just a PC remix of the first one. I managed to get through the Triassic and part of the Morrison episode before flicking the TV off, and not much had changed. The Ornitholestes, for example, was still featherless and had the innacurate nose. The only thing that did change was the commenting, and the order of the scenes to cut out some of the more risque stuff (Postosuchus marking territory, cynodonts leaving their offspring behind...now they "take them with them") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalraptor (talk • contribs) 22:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

They did correct some material though, by giving Liopleurodon a more reasonable size of 40 feet. And since they're merely changing the narration it would be extremely tedious to change the raptors with feathers. They also mixed in some footage of what I think is either Dinosaur Planet or When Dinosaurs Roamed America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameratsu (talk • contribs) 01:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be freaky. Well, they also did correct one thing in the Triassic episode, fixing the location, instead of a desert, to a scrub forest, or something like that. But the main change was the narration and the PC correctness. By the way, how could they use clips from W.D.R.A. and D.P.? They use two different animations styles and are created by different people, right? I know Roamed America is, because the animation isn't as good as Walking With —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalraptor (talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "The Next Chapter" still needs explanation in the article. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 19:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Complete guide to prehistoric life.jpg
The image Image:Complete guide to prehistoric life.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Arena Spectacular
There's a new production out now, called Walking with Dinosaurs: The Arena Spectacular, which appears to be giant puppets and/or animatronics. It has a website at http://www.dinosaurlive.com, and is a production of The Creature Production Company "in association with" BBC Worldwide. Tagline: "See 17 life-size dinosaurs roam the arena in this astonishing show". Assuming there's only one set of the dinos, the show is in Albuquerque, New Mexico, US, as of March 17-21; no idea where they are moving after that. That's all I know about the production so far. This probably should go in the spin-offs section. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 19:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: There are at least two sets of the dinosaurs, which are a mixture of suits worn by human actors, puppets/marionettes and animatronics, as the website says that the UK tour (with 15 dinos) is ongoing as well. The show opened (in the UK anyway) in March 2009. There are bunch of other pages and videos and stuff at the site that can probably be plundered for enough detail for a proper paragraph or two at this article. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 19:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)\

Pterygotus
The errors section claims that Pterygotus is not the biggest arthropod of all time, and Jakelopterus and Arthropleura are. First off, while Arthropleura is longer, being an aquatic animal, Pterygorus is defintely heavier and larger. The whole Arthropleura debacle is jus nitpicking at WWM, when there is no evidence that Arthropleura is any larger. And Jake was deicovered 3 years after the documentary. I will take the liberty of editing it.

New edit to Inaccuricies
Should I add that Torosaurus may be Triceratops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.86.130 (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If it "may be" Triceratops I wouldn't list it as an inaccuracy until it is confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.154.87 (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and Anatotitan "may be" Edmontosaurus, but I'm not putting that on the list. 70.80.215.121 (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't: in those cases, they weren't inaccurate at the time, as no one, at the time, realized that the various genera had been/should have been synonymized yet.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Prehistoric Park
Prehistoric Park, while starring Nigel Marven and produced by Impossible Pictures, is not considered part of the Walking With... series because it didn't premiere on the BBC, which owns the rights to the name, and wasn't produced by Tim Haines.  Serendi pod ous  10:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracies
I have deleted this section as it appeared to be entirely original research without a single cite. If a reliable source has discussed inaccuracies of the series then it might merit a section, but Wikipedia is not the place for editors to collect examples of where they believe it is inaccurate. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it should be important to point out that the makers of Walking With made numerous errors in their research. Yes, they should be referenced eventually, and it should be incorporated directly into the article, but I don't see why it should be summarily deleted.  I mean, why would it be original research to say that they got some things wrong if a casual study/examination of the subject shows they were wrong?--Mr Fink (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because a casual study/examination of the subject could be mistaken. This is an encyclopaedia.  Things should be cited always, particularly when it is critical of others' work.   As it is close to one half of this article is pointing out where the series is wrong, but it doesn't include a single cite to back any of it up.  All we have is evidence that a number of unknown editors, with no known expertise, are of the opinion that "numerous errors" were made.  How is the reader to know it's correct?  Why should they believe Wikipedia?  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * At the very least, there should be mention of how Walking With is inaccurate, and [comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research]. Certainly, the Inaccuracies section must be trimmed down and appropriate citations given.  However, simply dismissing and deleting the entire section as merely original research would give readers the impression that Walking With has no factual errors to begin with.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * From the essay you link to ; "Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources." Quite apart from none of this being sourced, this section is not "comparing and contrasting".  It is taking a clear position on the matter and stating "this is wrong". If reliable references cannot be found to explain the apparent discrepancy, editors should resist the temptation to add their own explanation.
 * If it is not "merely" original research, then what is it?? Yes, there should be mention of how Walking With is inaccurate, if a sourced claim to a reliable source/notable authority can be found that says this.  So far all we have is your opinion that this is the case.  So the impression we are giving readers is that Walking With has been criticised by experts, when there is no evidence of this.  Again, a core policy of Wikipedia is verifiability.
 * I find it hard to understand why an editor of your experience needs core Wikipedia policy explained. Surely you must see this is OR, and whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant in that case? -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 21:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not patronize me: I find it insulting and counterproductive. There needs to be mention of the errors in Walking With's research, and I am more than willing to compromise.  Would it kill you to be a little more flexible or helpful, rather than simply shaming and belittling me for not following all the rules to the letter?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not patronising you and this is not about you. I just couldn't believe it's news to you that original research is not permitted, so I could only guess you're not convinced that it is OR. This is a discussion I usually have with novice editors who think that "but I know it's true" is good enough for it to be on Wikipedia, not with an editor of your experience.
 * Wouldn't that be fairest to the advisers to the series, or are we to trash their work on the say of a collection of anonymous Wikipedia editors? "The Walking with Dinosaurs article explains that; Michael J. Benton, a consultant to the making of the series (and Professor of Vertebrate Palaeontology at Bristol University) .. believes many other claims of "errors" identified in the first weeks fizzled out, as the critics had found points about which they disagreed, but they could not prove that their views were correct."  How are we to demonstrate that this is not the case with all these "inaccuracies"?
 * What is "needed" first is not mention of the errors, but verifiable sources that state that the errors exist. If they were significant then there should be little difficulty sourcing them.  I see that the Walking with Dinosaurs article at least makes an attempt at this (although I have problems with it citing new research as evidence of errors, it's synthesis at best).   Otherwise Wikipedia is not the place for publishing this original research.  The chief problem with it is that who knows if it is correct?  I have no way of knowing if 90% of the "Inaccuracies" section is accurate, and I suspect that neither will most other readers.  It could be all be seriously mistaken, full of basic amateurish misunderstandings, written by people who don't know as much as they think they do, or simply differing opinions that can't be proven either way.  This is why we cite things, so the reader knows whose word they are taking.  This is why I'm not 'flexible' on it.
 * There is an easy solution here that involves no compromises on anyone's part; cite the content and all is solved. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If Mr Fink has no further suggestion for either citing this content, or demonstrating how it is not original research, I take it I can remove it as such? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There, it's gone. Happy now?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I happy that this article no longer flouts core Wikipedia policy? Absolutely.  Please feel free to re-add whatever can be sourced to reliable sources without original research or synthesis. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 12:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I have readded this section since the walking with without presents that it has no inaccuricies. Which is far from true i will edit out invalid inaccuricies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.38.252 (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No one is interested in what you think is true and what you think are inaccuracies. Content has to be verifiable from reliable sources, without use of Synthesis.  99% of this section fails to do this.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 11:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Name change?
Should the name be changed to Walking with… as opposed to Walking with...? Note that … is only one character and ... is three. Chris (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find most readers searching with the three "..." rather than the one "…". But "Walking with…" could be created as a redirect (in the same way "Walking with" is), if you think it'd help.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 11:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Another thing I forgot to mention is that the character … will display incorrectly in some of the more obscure web browsers (for example, Wii's Internet Channel). I think we should keep it the way it is. Chris (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Prehistoric Park inclusion???
Is Prehistoric Park really a spin-off of the Walking with... series, or is it a series of its own, not affiliated with Walking with... at all? Because I see almost nothing that truly connects the serial with the series, other than both being made by Impossible Pictures and hosting Nigel Marvin. Just because some things have in common to each other, doesn't always mean they are a part of the other. Gabeluna27 (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's inclusion here makes very little sense. Since there are no citations for it being a spin-off here I've removed it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)