Talk:Walking with...

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mesothelae 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Allosaurus 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bistahievavor was the ancestor, not Albertosaurus 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ornithocherirus 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prehistoric Planet 

message: 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)
thread_title: Bruhathkayosaurus

message: 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)
thread_title: Wishful Thinking and Apologetics

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) 03:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Wws.jpg

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

message: 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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Complete guide to prehistoric life.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Arena Spectacular 

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

message: 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. Serendipodous 10:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Prehistoric Park

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Name change? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Prehistoric Park inclusion???