Talk:Nature documentary

message: The external link to the honeybee documentary appears too self-promotion like. Should it be removed? Sheephunt2000 (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link excessive self-promotion? 

message: Due to the fact that a total of half the mentioned famous nature documentary personalities, including Steve Irwin, are dead, I removed this special mention of him as "late" ("[...]and the late Steve Irwin") Tutorp 21:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steve Irwin 

message: Her mention is not relevant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.30.198.4 (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Bindi Irwin Here? 

message: I just asked this question at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous, but I hope you will not mind if I post it here (and also at maybe another page or two) since you would be the most knowledgeable editors on the question.
I am looking for help identifying a nature documentary I saw when I was a child (mid-'90s). It follows the communal life of a particular group of orangutans in the wild (but maybe gorillas or chimps??).
Unfortunately, I can only remember one scene -- but if you saw it, you too would never forget it:
One of the orangutans is an infant, and he is being raised by his mother or perhaps his aunt. She carries him around piggy-back style, like most orangutans do. But the weird thing is, he never outgrows this, even as he grows into a large adolescent.  He never permits her to put him down -- in fact, now he can force her to carry him.  Then she gets polio.  Carrying him saps her of her strength, and she dies.  Without her, he too dies.
Thank you for your help.  160.39.220.66 (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello there. I've noticed you've been asking this question repeatedly on many different discussion pages. The discussion pages are for talking about how to improve the article, not for general discussion about the topic. Yahoo Answers or Ask MetaFilter would be a more appropriate place to ask. Good luck. Autumn Veil (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm looking for help identifying a documentary I saw as a child 

message: As far as I know the first full-length nature documentary is the American The Living Desert (1953)... but I found this, about the British woman Mary Field (1896-1968, not to be confused with the American acress), who apparently directed numerous nature documentary films. Does anybody know if one or some of them were full-length films? As an example, there is an excerpt of Nursery Island (1936). Kintaro (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  First full-length nature documentary film ? 

message: Its not neutral now. There is a lot of publicity inside it, often some corporate names and the old stuff of this subject is missing. --93.184.26.78 (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not neutral 

message: A nature documentary explains things on earth or all things that are important about life on earth. Its not only about animals and plants, it has also to do with stones, water, air, the sun, the moon and for sure also with the stars more or less. So the outherspace depends also in the universal and complete subject of life to this theme. --93.184.26.78 (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  short definition 

message: Carl Sagan is probably one of the most common and famous person that has worked for natural movie documentaries (that have to do with the very big subject life). --93.184.26.78 (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Carl Sagan]] 

message: When we speak about nature documentary and than use also other terms like natural history film and wildlife film, it will be very controversial or better ambiguous. These are 3 different not 1 genres. Nature documentary deals with all stuff of natural stuff in the universe, nothing about human made. Wildlife film is specially about the animals living in the nature, so wild animals. Plants are not in this subject. Natural history film is a strange combination of words or just strange because of the word history. It should not be there. Or why? And the adjective natural is also not really the same as the subject nature. Natural is often used in the context of not artificial. Do we want make clear n precis statements? greez--93.184.26.78 (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead part n main definition