Talk:Liopleurodon

message: I think that tidbit needs just a little more elaboration, due to the common misconception that the great size was based on "The Monster of Aramberri". It's stated in the tie-in book Walking with Dinosaurs The Evidence on page 80 that the gigantic Liopleurodon was based on a large pliosaur vertebra from Oxford Clay described by David Martill and Collin McHenry in 1996 (https://archive.org/details/walkingwithdinos00mart/page/104/mode/2up) which was initially thought to have come from a pliosaur 17-20 meters in length (https://reptilis.net/DML/1996Oct/msg00231.html), and for WWD, they speculated based on those estimates that even larger specimens could have existed, leading to the 25-meter Liopleurodon in "Cruel Sea".
In 2009, Colin McHenry reexamined the ‘Peterborough vertebra’ (PETMG R272) in his lengthy paper "Devourer of Gods" and gave it a smaller estimate of 11.6–14.2 meters (mean estimate, 12.6 m) on page 437 and cautioned how unreliable size estimates based on fragmentary material can be.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.228.107.227 (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: About the Walking with Dinosaurs Liopleurodon

message: How is it that the word "extinct" doesn't appear anywhere in the article except as part of the title of a footnote? I realize it's WP policy to use the present tense "is" in describing what an item is (not sure where "was" comes in), but from what I gather, no Liopeurodons are living in the present day. Manys (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is pretty heavily implied by saying it lived during the Middle Jurassic, which means not now. If there were any theories about this particular genus's extinction, that could be covered, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: "Extinct"

message: One is featured in PRIMAL S1E10. Drsruli (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:trivia. FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

text: As was repeatedly previously explained to you, "In Popular Culture" sections should be discussions about media depictions impacting the way the public perceives the topic in question, and should not be trivia laundry lists of "spot the monster of the week," especially if the featured subject is not important to either the franchises mentioned or the episode they star in.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

text: If you can't discuss or explain its relevance to the plot, let alone discuss or explain how its role in that episode is impacting how popular culture views Liopleurodon, then it is probably not notable enough to mention.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

text: So, less than 5% of the episodes 22 minute runtime? That is hardly significant. Focusing on the ngram results  Liopleurodon was clearly thrust into the public consciousness by it's massively oversized appearance in Walking With Dinosaurs, which is probably the only "in popular culture" thing maybe worth mentioning. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, for one, I don't believe the Primal pliosaur is ever stated to be Liopleurodon within the show (admittedly because the show doesn't have dialogue). Two, I think one of the problems with "In Popular Culture" section is that that phrasing implies that the section should be a compendium of appearances in popular media. A better heading title would be "Cultural impact", which is specifically meant to tackle the media or other pop culture forces which have brought an animal into public perception. If we can find a good source on the topic, I wouldn't be opposed to bringing up how the idea of pliosaurs as big blue-and-white superpredators is directly a result of the WWD Liopleurodon. The Primal depiction seems to be a follower of that public perception, not a trailblazer. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Like Pliosaurus or Kronosaurus?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Popular Culture