Talk:Walking with Monsters

message: Have I missed any? 61.230.78.158 00:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Camera Interaction

message: Some users have preferred this entry to include names more specific than the names, often family or class names, used in the film. Examples include "Ericiolacerta" instead of "therocephalia" and "Gorgonops" instead of the broader "gorgonopsid."
This Wikipedia entry is about the film, not the encyclopedia. Yes, it certainly is helpful to reference the encyclopedia, especially if it adds more information about the visualization of animals. After all, when the fossil record does not contain complete information about animals in the area of the world the film makers are focusing on, they have used similar animals from elsewhere. (For example, Gorgonops did not live in Siberia.) I think that such references, while helpful, should be linked to the encyclopedia, and at least referenced as coming from the encyclopedia.--Denn333 06:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute about the names of Animals in this Wikipedia entry

message: Its not harmful to use the encyclopedia as a referance...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.15.117 (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This article is has disputed facts"? 

message: This user keeps on removing info that cites inaccuracies in Walking with Monsters (with me reverting/restoring). How do you get him/her to stop? I just don't want this to become an edit war. Giant Blue Anteater 05:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The user probably thinks the plural is "gorgonopsi", so it could be just a simple mistake. Giant Blue Anteater 22:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That does constidtute a mistake Giant Blue Anteater 20:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning of an edit war

message: Though I generally agree with the content of the inaccuracies sections, there are several things that are a bit 'over the top'. I have hidden the point on 'amphibians', because it was an exaggerated application of a highly strictly cladistic mindset. For the general public, strictly cladistic hobby-horses are not really of interest. Generally, Hynerpeton and Seymouria belonged to an amphibian 'grade'. Fedor 08:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I noticed on the talk page. Now, anyone mind I definitely delete the amphibian ramble that I have hidden? Fedor 07:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess not... Fedor 07:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole section reads like original research. Metamagician3000 00:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of it IS original research, but, on the other hand, they are accurate in pointing out the flaws in Walking with Monsters' research, too.--Mr Fink 21:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm moving the inacuracies to this section becaue there are NO citations, I find it repulsive to have somone clame these as contridicitng "facts" with no basis! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.158.133.194 (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies in inaccuracies 

message: Some parts of the program in the article don't have the filming location stated. I'll try and see if I can find it anywhere, but meanwhile, can anyone help me? Thanks. Radical3 19:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Socotra Island, California, Florida, Gran Canaria and Fuerteventura (Canary Islands). Here: https://walkingwith.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Walking_with..._locations 91.97.61.239 (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Filming Locations

message: I removed the Citation-Needed tags from the Inaccuracies section because it's not necessary to cite outside sources in order to point out what was done wrong in the series. Even a brief fact-checking shows that the makers of Walking with Monsters were extremely sloppy with their information.--Mr Fink 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact remains that they let their artistic license trump the need for accuracy repeatedly.--Mr Fink 16:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Citation-Needed Tags 

message: I'd like to see the general consensus for whether Walking with Cavemen is a part of the Walking with series or not, in order to avoid an edit war.  General consensus should probably decide whether it is a part of the series, or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MelicansMatkin (talk • contribs) 19:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Series 

message: Euparkeria doesn't evolve
into allosaurus, it evolves 
into megalosaurus(or a creature
that looks like the carnivore 
in "the lost world", which I
don't think is allosaurus, it 
has differant colour patterns).
T.Neo 10:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is simply because they used a higher resolution model than the one in Walking with Dinosaurs. And, please, don't ignore the fact that the identification was made using a trait commonly found in Allosaurs (eye crest). If you're going to discredit an observation, at least dispose of the evidence in a proper manner. The fact that they immideatly cut to a scene from "Ballad of Big All" acts as the final nail in the coffin. -- Majin Gojira 13:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No allosaurus 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Wws.jpg

message: I didn't see Dimetrodon evolve into diictodon. User:Puncharoo Read my page first 12:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolutions

message: Using the encyclopedia as a refrence doesn't make this a poor article. They didn't identify all of the creatres right, they only referred to Proterogyrinus as an amphibian. *It's a nightmare out here*Arthropods|<The Ancients>Fish |<The Elders>]]Amphibians|<The Old>Reptiles|<The Amazing>Dinosaurs<The Young>Mammals
I'd like to share an information I added, to be able to wrap my head around the whole DVD. The hazards aren't enough to me, more important to me are positive novelties of evolution. So this is what I added above the hazards: 530 mya: Evolutionary Novelty: mini-fish with vertebrae, 418 mya: Evolutionary Novelty: fish with brain and memory, 360 mya: Evolutionary Novelty: early amphibian, 300 mya: Evolutionary Novelty: first reptiles, 280 mya: Evolutionary Novelty: ancestors of mamals with sails, 250 mya: Evolutionary Novelty: mamal-like reptiles, 248 mya: Evolutionary Novelty: ancestor of dinosaurs--Demoiselle Clarisse (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The factual quality of this article is disputed"? 

message: :Image:Haikouichthys.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 ensure 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) 23:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Haikouichthys.jpg

message: The spider has being found, a user from youtube put a comment and said he/she saw a fossil of the spider and it was huge. Mr. Loner (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Newsflash

message: The image :Image:Edaphosaurus.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.
The following images also have this problem:
*:Image:Mesothelae.jpg
*:Image:Hyneria.jpg
*:Image:Gorgonopsid.jpg
*:      Image:Euparkeria WWD.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Edaphosaurus.jpg

message: In Section Two, someone called Proterogyrinus "amphibian", which was a bad decision for three reasons. 
# Proterogyrinus is not an amphibian, it was a reptiliomorph.
# They used the term "amphibian" as if it was the name of a genus.
# Viewers to this page should know what species appeared, not what classes appeared.
I fixed it up, but I'm just pointing out wthe mistakes. No hard feelings :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.155.74 (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genus name 

message: Honestly, do we need to cite external sources when pointing out the scientific errors in this movie, when one could easily refer to the other articles on this encyclopedia and their external links and see the truth for themselves? Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, per WP:CIRCULAR. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I object strongly. Honestly, do we need to cite a source proving that Gorgonops, Rhinesuchus, and Diictodon were not from Siberia? No scientific paper critical of Walking with Monsters will ever be made anytime soon. It a simple affair of simple fact checking. This movie presents such misinformation about the animals presented, and the general public must find the truth, one way or another. Removing this section will just perpetuate these lies. Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Giant Blue: demanding that we provide sources and citations for pointing out that the "Walking With" franchise has many of their facts wrong is too much like WP:CREEP, and makes Wikipedia unnecessarily bureacratic--Mr Fink (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This article does not cite any references or sources." 

message: There is no such genus as a straight-shelled nautiloid. And yet someone keeps calling Cameraceras Straight-shelled nautiloid. Why are they doing this? --24.141.155.74 (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahem 

message: The artivle claims the following:
"Unlike Walking with Dinosaurs and Walking with Beasts, Walking with Monsters focuses rather graphically on the killings made by predators, which some viewers may find disturbing."
I'd say that Dinosaurs and Beasts also give predator-prey relationships some graphic focus (WWD's Liopleurodon tearing the heavily pregnant Ophthalmosaurus clean in half, WWB's giant ants stripping the hatchling Gastornis to the bones), so I'm just going to remove the part of the quote that says "Unlike WWD and WWB," okay? 70.80.215.121 (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predator-prey relations 

message: ...that this article has a section on criticism of the program, but none on praise for it? I personally think this should be remedied ASAP. If I knew how, I would put up that banner that says something along the lines of "The section on criticism may not represent a neutral point of view". 70.80.215.121 (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Worse yet, it was unsourced, I removed it all. The "inaccuracies" section might have to go for the same reason. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't it strange... 

message: I found some proof that Spriggina have to appear in Walking with Monsters somewhere, because I found an image of it in the Crawley Creatures' website, under the Walking with Monsters section in the gallery and there is in the creature list too. I don't know what is that mean, but may be the creature there is somewhere in the Cambrian background or probably there was a cut out scene about the Edicaran life, so may be we should add to the creature list as an unpresented creature. Anyways here is the link. --84.0.167.146 (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The "spriggina" looks like a platyhelminthes (flatworm) to me ;-) Crawley Creatures' website isn't that waterproof, e.g. they got dinosaurs (Leaellynasaurus and Allosaurus) in their "Walking with Beasts" section . --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the painting really looks like the colouring of that flatworm, but obviously it's shape is different. About the dinosaurs in Walking with Beasts: that's right that they don't appear in the series, but they are relating as the part of the Walking with... series and Spriggina isn't appear any of the series (or just we can't see it), so if the creature isn't appear in WWM, then it have to appear some of the shows. And there is no other project in the Crawley Creatures' list which can contain a creature like this. So the closest series to Spriggina is still WWM. It's interesting that in the creature list there are two more Edicaran creatures (Dickinsonia and Charniodiscus), so the most likely option for me is a cut out scene. In addition, all of the  other listed creatures have their place (large and small ammonite in WWD and Primeval; large and small trilobite in Sea Monsters and WWM; Anomalocaris in WWM).--145.236.216.54 (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Spriggina in Walking with Monsters

message: Several of the segments are introduced by  statements like "250 million years ago: Late Permian, Siberia; Global Temp: 60% hotter than today".
Statements like "60% hotter" are totally meaningless. The only scale that you can have a percentage temperature comparison is Kelvin, and 60% hotter than today on the K scale would be over boiling point. So it's probably meant to be either Fahrenheit or Celsius. No indication which. But that's what they have on the screen, so we just report it, stupid and incorrect as it is. 
Example: say that the average temp is now 20C.
 20C = 68 F = 293K
 Add 60% to 20C: = 32C; 
 Add 60% to 68 F :=  109F (42.6C) 
 Add 60% to 293K :=469K  (196C)
So the only one that seems plausible is Celsius. Of course, that kind of deduction  is OR, so can't be put in the article. Barsoomian (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  percent hotter? 

message: The documentary itself and the description here call the pre-crocodile creatures seen in the last part of the last programme Chasmatosaurus, but in the animals list it they are named Proterosuchus.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.161.209.254 (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chasmatosaurus/Proterosuchus