Talk:Walking with Monsters

Camera Interaction

Have I missed any? 61.230.78.158 00:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A better question to all is: Is "camera interaction" necessary? Last I checked, exhaustive lists of things that occur in a medium are against the MoS, especially if they are trivial, as is the case of the camera interaction (the interaction with the camera has very little to do with the actual focus of the series, which is the lives of these animals, not how they interact with an unseen camera). --Onore Baka Sama (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Dispute about the names of Animals in this Wikipedia entry

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)

Actually, having just gotten the encyclopedia myself, I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that users who have put the animal names on here are in fact in error. The encyclopedia merely uses the same images for similar animals. We do not see, for example, a Gorgonops in the film. Rather, it's a gorgonopsid (more generally) and the book uses the same image for the more specific Gorgonops (which did not live in the area referred to in the film anyway!!!!!!!!). This needs to be changed, but I will let others do it to their satisfaction first.--Denn333 09:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Get proof first. Period. I'll give you the right to be the detective and search for the clues. I'm not starting another arguement, just trying to make everyone work together so we (not me, not you, not GBA or anybody else, it's WE, which means anybody who wants to help) can figure something out! Dora Nichov 11:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The "proof" already exists, and I already described it. Perhaps you mean that you were unwilling to change what you wrote, afraid that this would be admitting you were mistaken.

I digress... because Haines et al recycled still photographs for the (later-published) encylopedia, Dora Nichov, Great Blue Anteater, and others have incorrectly inferred that the animals in the Walking with Monsters film match 1-to-1 with the animals whose names are given in the encyclopedia.

Someday, when I have the time to fix the article, I will do so. In the meantime, other readers should be aware that this article is not accurate.--Denn333 03:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) It is!MarineMania1 (talk) 07:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Un-Alignment of Complete Guide to Prehistoric Life to Walking with... films

OK... so where's the proof? I don't see proof that the encyclopedia used recycled still pictures. That was just your guess. Dora Nichov 09:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the introduction of the The Complete Guide to Prehistoric Life. It says, in the 2006 edition:

• (first paragraph) they made Walking with Dinosaurs
• (second paragraph) they made the other Walking With... shows; they "finished with seven and a half hours of television"
• (third paragraph) "The combined coverage of these television series has allowed us to fulfil another long-standing ambition - namely, to produce a book that could tell the same storyusing the unique high-resolution stills made possible by the materials produced specailly for the programmes.

This CLEARLY shows that they made the movies and then took artwork from the movies and made the book.--edited by Denn333 17:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I made a mistake. I meant to ask that whether you have proof that the animals in the encyclopedia are not meant to be the ones in the film. Dora Nichov 09:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I am glad you see that the book reused stills from the films.

As for the "proof" you want...

The proof comes in three forms:

1. Nowhere do Haines et al state "the movie and the book ARE the same animals." Unless they do, you are inferring that they are the same.

2. They did NOT use the name Thrinaxadon (or Gorgonops, etc.) in the films. They did not say it for a reason, and it is not your place (or anyone else's) to decisively fill in the blanks they intentionally left.

3. Because the film must confine animals in each scene to a single location, and the book can list a separate location for each animal, the book has more flexibility with choosing names. For example, look at this official movie description of the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/dinosaurs/fact_files/dried/cynodont.htm">Cynodont</a> in Walking with Dinosaurs. In the film it was CALLED a "cynodont" because Thrinaxodon lived elsewhere, despite it being a better fossil resource from which the filmmakers drew. We are not looking at Thrinaxodon (Gorgonops, etc.) when we watch Walking with... -- despite what you all keep saying.

In short, nowhere does it say that "the book and the movies align." You are inferring alignment. In most cases, that alignment IS correct, but it has NOT been stated anywhere, and is, in fact, rejectable. The accuracy of this article (and others like it) suffers as a result of this invalid inference.

I would like others to weigh in here.Denn333 21:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

See my message on my talk page. I cannot get a conclusion nor a solution, but I can say that. We shouldn't change anything until there's definite proof of everything we're talking about. Eg: even if the cynodont was not meant to be Thrinaxodon, both the book (not the same as encyclopedia) and the website say it's so, and at least it WAS based on Thrinaxodon. Dora Nichov 10:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

How can argue when you are not being logical? Would someone ELSE please chime in about this? Sheesh.

Why, may I ask, am I not logical? I never said I was, anyway. Dora Nichov 09:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you said that logic was strategy down below. Moreover, you are not being logical because I don't NEED proof. YOU need proof to justify putting these names in. Otherwise, the link to the encylopedia is just speculation.Denn333 02:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not using logic right now. I'm not even using a "strategy". I'm just talkinng back to whatever you say until we can agree on something. If you can go see my talk page, you'll see what I said is pretty sensible. BECAUSE they used shots from the films and BECAUSE they were made by the same people, it's natural I should think they were meant to be the same animals. (I'm only saying that part is sensible, feel free to critisize anything else I said). Seymouria and Proterogyrinus were not identified either, but they were on the website, a source which you approve of, and the encyclopedia listed them as such too. Therefore, it's safer to assume the animals are meant to be the same as in the programme than not. Let's try to clear this up by trying to contact the producers of possible. If not, well, we'll just have to wait until someone else chimes in. Dora Nichov 03:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If we do contact the creators, I'd also like to ask about:

• the therocephalians (WWM ep 3) (it says Ericiolacerta, but Ericiolacerta is supposed to be the size of a squirrel or something...)
• the pterosaurs (WWD ep 5) (probably new species of pterosaurs from Australia that aren't named yet)
• the small pterosaurs (WWD ep 4) (they look like Pteranodon, but Pteranodon didn't live at that time)
• the ornithopods (WWD ep 6) (probably Parksosaurus, Orodromeus or Thelescosaurus)
• the dromaeosaurs (WWD ep 6) (but Dromaeosaurus was the only dromaeosaur of that time and location, so...)
• the small predator (WWB ep 1) (the article says Cynodictis, but Cynodictis didn't live at that time)

Dora Nichov 11:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that Dora Nichov is right. I highly doubt that the authors of the encyclopedia would have used animals that were not represented on the show (except Homo floresiensis, but that's beside the point). The fact that they used different or inconclusive (like therocephalian) names on the show is just a technicality. And, as was mentioned, the fact that they used stills from the show is proof enough that the creatures match. - 23:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well,Denn333? Somebody else chimed in, and he's in my favor... Dora Nichov 00:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the book was made as a companion to the films. It would not make sense for a companion book to be made if the creatures did not match. - 01:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to say that but you beat me to it. >_^ Dora Nichov 01:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if you still have differing opinions, maybe this whole situation could be resolved with a poll. - 00:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I normally just lurk around Wikipedia, but I had to create an account and weigh in after I read this big long discussion here and saw that it hadn't been resolved. I don't have the book, but does it say the animals match? If not, and there's no other source saying they match, then it's not legit on Wikipedia. The words "highly doubt" and "just a technicality" and "proof enough" are big clues to me that you don't have any real proof. Denn333 showed his proof very clearly, even quoting the book. That thranixadont page looks like good proof that you are wrong Dora Nichov. It explains it good.

That's my vote.Dinogeek 12:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We're still waiting for Denn333 to reply to our last messages. Dora Nichov 09:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

May I say again that it's a companion book to the Walking With... series? While that isn't direct proof, it's doubtful they'd use animals NOT meant for the series. For now, Denn333, we're even, as we both have even numbers of people Dinogeek, Denn333 did NOT quote any evidence that the animals were NOT the same as the program. All he said was there is no evidence that the encyclopedia uses the same animals. The best thing to do is try to contact the authors. (I've said this a hundred times!). Look, Walking With Dinosaurs and Walking With Beasts both have companion books, and they definitely feature animals from the programs. It's highly unlikely that a companion book for the whole series would do otherwise. Dora Nichov 13:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see the relevance of your Thrinaxodon comment Dinogeek. Anyway, I know that Wikipedia was founded on official and verifiable info. but we can't let that get in the way of common sense. My common sense is telling me that, based on many factors, the creatures do in-fact match. There is no proof that the creatures match but there is no proof that they don't either. In-fact, even if there is no proof that they match, there seems to be less proof that they don't. And technically nobody here on either side of the debate has shown UNDENIABLE PROOF. By the way, I am aware of the fact that your last message was meant for Dora, and yet you used my quotes. What's that about?. - 21:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Dora Nichov 00:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, thanks. You said everything I could have wanted to say. Dora Nichov 08:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. We have similar opinions. I just hope that after the debate, the article turns out ok. - 15:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing my name as I recently found out that someone else has it. And why have Den333 and Dinogeek not returned?!. - 20:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Dora Nichov 12:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Are they taking a wiki-break?. I hope they are all-right. It would be sad if something had happened to them, especially since they haven't finnished the conversation (unless they abandoned the conversation). Guys, if you are reading this, I do value your opinions and I would like to hear from you again (be it for agreeing with us, or to dissagree and strenghthen your arguments), because frankly I think this issue is unresolved. - 22:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've already had this arguement with Denn333 a long time ago, and then he suddenly stopped answering. I thought it was settled, but then after a few months he came AGAIN! And now he has stopped again... Dora Nichov 09:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why couldn't Gorgonops have lived in Russia? The Permian-early Jurassic periods were when Pangaea existed, so animals could wander across the entire globe if they wanted to! However, I can see why Gorgonops would want to avoid competition with its larger Russian relative Inostrancevia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Gorgonopsid in Walking with Monsters and Primeval really is Gorgonops longifrons species. Tim Haines said it was that, so it was Gorgonops! Blogorgonopsid 13:19 (UTC) 26th February 2014

"This article is has disputed facts"?

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)

Warning of an edit war

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)

Show him logic and persist. That's my strategy. Dora Nichov 00:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather presumptive strategy (and displays an "I'm always right" attitude that is disgusting.)

Another strategy would be to ask him WHY he/she is removing them, even if it means putting the question directly in the article. Sometimes you have to resort to these things temporarily to elucidate motivation. Whatever the reason, the user you refer to clearly does not want these innacuracies listed.

Another option, by the way, could be to rewrite the inaccuracies section a different way, and see what happens.--Denn333 03:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd still be civil, and I'd only try this if I'm sure that I'm 100% right. Dora Nichov 09:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I notified the user, asking him why he is removing the inaccuracies. Giant Blue Anteater 23:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool... Let us know what he says. --Denn333 02:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! I've tried this before on another user, and it worked. Dora Nichov 09:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Some guy also keeps changing "Gorgonops" and "gorgonopsid" to "gorgonopsi", whatever that is. Dora Nichov 14:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

No, I think he misheard "gorgonopsid" as "gorgonopsi", but it's really annoying as he changes the "Gorgonops"es too. Dora Nichov 08:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That does constidtute a mistake Giant Blue Anteater 20:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And there's only one "gorgonopsid" in the whole article, which means he's also trying to change "Gorgonops". Dora Nichov 09:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not the one who has been deleting anything in the 'inaccuracies' section, but it was filled with inaccuracies that I attempted to remedy. Read below: Fedor 08:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in inaccuracies

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)

• Hynerpeton was not an amphibian, it was a basal tetrapod. Many basal tetrapods are often mistaken for amphibians.

Seymouria was identified as an "amphibian", but it is not a true member. It was a reptiliomorph. Another reptiliomorph that was identified as an "amphibian" was Proterogyrinus. However all these animals are still considered "amphibians" using the traditional Linnaean taxonomy, but the "amphibian" clade is artificial.-->

And what is up with hidden comments like these:

This section cannot be deleted. If you delete this section, it will be reverted.

This looks very hostile for someone who is not aware of the recent troubles and is only interested in improving the text! Fedor 08:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh thats just there because there was a user who keeps removing the section, so I had to add the hidden text. Giant Blue Anteater 20:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

I guess not... Fedor 07:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The whole section reads like original research. Metamagician3000 00:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

True. Dora Nichov 00:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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).

Personally, I find it repulsive that we're not allowed to point out Walking With Monsters' very poor research. If you've done even the most rudimentary research on a lot of these organisms, you'd realize that the people who made Walking With Monsters got stuff wrong. How do we go about pointing out what these people got wrong as according to Wiki Policy? --Mr Fink 15:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll review the section. Giant Blue Anteater 23:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Dora Nichov 02:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

Because the series takes an artistic license with regards to its views on evolution, there are a number of inaccuracies especially related to ancestor-descendant relationships. Generally, one can never scientifically claim that a particular fossil form must be directly ancestral to another life form (fossil or not), at most it can be claimed what fossil forms are likely basal to what other life forms. Not only does the series repeatedly suggest this anyway, many of the claimed 'direct ancestors' are not even considered basal:

• Cephalaspis was not the ancestor of gnathostomes (jawed vertabrates) or tetrapods. Gnathostomes (in the form of placoderms and acanthodians) appear in the fossil record before Cephalaspis, probably originated from, or are closely related to, thelodonts, instead. In fact, Cephalaspis was found during the early Devonian, and shown being pursued by the Silurian Brontoscorpio.

• Gorgonops is only known from Africa. A Gorgonops-like animal that is known from Russia was Inostrancevia. Other animals that are known from Africa are Diictodon and Rhinesuchus. However, since the continents were all connected at the time it is conceivable that Gorgonops could have lived in Russia too, but there is no evidence for this.

• Petrolacosaurus was an early diapsid and could therefore not have been the ancestor of any synapsids (e.g. Edaphosaurus). The most basal synapsid, Archaeothyris, would have been a more suitable candidate.

Please keep this section on the talk page until it can be cited thank you!!!!

Filming Locations

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)

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)

I've found some filming locations! They are Australia, New Zealand, Mount Do in New Caledonia and the monkey-puzzle forests in Chile, but I don't know which bits match with these locations. Also, I'm kinda sure the Late Permian bit was filmed in the Atacama Desert, though I may be wrong so I'm not adding that, yet. Radical3 00:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Devils's Postpile?

The article says the first episode was filmed at Devil's Postpile. Where can this be found? Nitron Ninja Apple 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Where can the Devil's Postpile be found? or Where did we find out that it was filmed at the Devil's Postpile?. Well, Devil's Postpile is in California. Where did we find out that it was filmed there? I don't know... Radical3 23:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I know where Devil's Postpile is, and remembering it it vastly different from what is shown in the movie. Nitron Ninja Apple 13:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you probably didn't see the whole of the park. Anyways, is the Postpile beside the ocean? Radical3 15:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Saw the problem. It's the Devonian bits that were filmed there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nitron Ninja Apple (talk • contribs) 00:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

OK, so we solved that problem. I have an idea for which we can find the filming locations. If anyone has the DVD, watch the making. It probably states the locatins there. Radical3 (talk • contribs)

I don't have the DVD (I'm cheap-ass and downloaded the show from youtube). I'm pretty sure however that the Permian bit was filmed in either Egypt or Fraser island. Nitron Ninja Apple 19:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Which Permian bit? There are two of them, one early, one late. Are you talking about both of them? Well, for the late, I agree with you that it's Egypt. For the other bits, I have no idea. Radical3 (talk • contribs)

Removing Citation-Needed Tags

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)

Or you could call it artistic liscence or something less inflamatory. -- Majin Gojira 15:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)=

The fact remains that they let their artistic license trump the need for accuracy repeatedly.--Mr Fink 16:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Series

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).

Removed the section because there is already a series box at the bottom of the page. Reduntant information + Something that's already been decided = Deleeted Excess Information. - Majin Gojira 21:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it isn't part of the series despite similar names and crew. WWM, WWD and WWB are part of the Walking With Trilogy along with their specials. The WWC entry has been spared in the See Also section because it is still related to the trilogy somewhat, though it's not part of it. Dora Nichov 00:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No allosaurus

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)

It's Allosaurus. I didn't see much difference between that dinosaur and the Allosaurus in WWD and TBOBA. Dora Nichov 10:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an allosaur. There were no Megalosaurs in their production of the Lost World, only Allosaurs (Identified by Summerleigh, the prominent crest over the eys clearly evident). -- Majin Gojira 20:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It looked like the large carnivore from the lost world to me, even if the guy identified it as allosaurus he might have been wrong. If you were to come acroos a megalosaur you might confuse it with something else. I still think the WW... guys meant it was evolved into allosaurus. T.Neo 12:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

That's true. Dora Nichov 13:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

All I was saying was that it looked differant from the "other" allosaurus. Yes, it did cut to a scene with allosaurus afterwards. T.Neo 14:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"I don't think the carnivore in 'The Lost World' is Allosaurus, it has different colour patterns." Um, the only dinosaur that's colour is known is Sinosauropteryx, dinosaurs remain as nothing but bones, how would we know anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinolover45 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 10 April 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 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)

Evolutions

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

It didn't, it evolved into the gorgonopsid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.52.224 (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"The factual quality of this article is disputed"?

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Haikouichthys.jpg

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)

Newsflash

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)

The spider obviously is the main "hazard" in the early-reptile-part. But it isn't an insect! The dragonfly is, but spiders are not. So this titling "Hazards: giant insects" is false. Why not "giant spiders" instead? The dragonfly has only a small minor part.--Demoiselle Clarisse (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Artistic liscence with terminology I assume. Most people don’t distinguish between insects and arachnids so just saying insects and letting people assume spiders are counted too served their purposes. Also, you are forgetting about the giant millipede. Fritz1776 (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Edaphosaurus.jpg

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)

Genus name

In Section Two, someone called Proterogyrinus "amphibian", which was a bad decision for three reasons.

1. Proterogyrinus is not an amphibian, it was a reptiliomorph.
2. They used the term "amphibian" as if it was the name of a genus.
3. 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)

"This article does not cite any references or sources."

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)

Yes, per WP:CIRCULAR. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Ahem

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)

Blame Animal Armageddon. 70.80.215.121 (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is very annoying how, for example, some idiot will change Dromaeosaurus to "Dromaeosaur", Hybodus to "Shark", and Australovenator to "Polar Allosaur" on the Walking with Dinosaurs page. Although I don't really understand why the creators of these documentaries can't simply refer to the animals by their actual genus and leave us the trouble of identifying them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well Cameraceras, Dromaeosaurus and Hybodus have all been identified in official tie-in publications to the series (The Complete Guide to Prehistoric Life, 2006 and in the case Dromaeosaurus, The Science of Walking with Dinosaurs, 1999) - however calling the polar allosaur Australovenator is entirely speculative/OR - it was discovered long after the series was made, hundreds of km to the north in rocks about 10 million years younger than the Victorian polar deposits.Ozraptor4 (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Predator-prey relations

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)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it strange...

...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)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

I have two words for you! 70.80.215.121 (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, here's the banner I was referring to:

70.80.215.121 (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Spriggina in Walking with Monsters

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)

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 [1]. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

percent hotter?

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)

Chasmatosaurus/Proterosuchus

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)