Talk:Planet Dinosaur

I've had it!

Alright thats it! iv'e had it with you Idiots destroying my edits, Their true edits!!!!! I add all the animals from the episode and What do i see when i refresh, most animals of the episode deleted! I don't care if i have to have a sorce or not, its stupid to delete just cause their is no source, What i post is the truth, You guys don't know a thing about this stuff. If I could, i would sue you for every thing you guys own for fibbing!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.33.49 (talk • contribs) 20:13, September 20, 2011

You might want to read WP:NOTTRUTH. mgiganteus1 (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You're clearly guessing, it's blatantly obvious that you're guessing, and guess what? Now I have PROOF that you're guessing, because you missed out one of the animals that definately appears. Sorry buddy, but you're wrong. Also, sign your name. 79.70.113.239 (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I suspected. Todays episode did not feature all the dinosaurs you listed, but it also featured two dinosaurs you did NOT list. Therefore confirming my suspitions that you were, indeed, guessing. 85.210.189.217 (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

174.48.33.49, try to compare what you're saying to actual Wikipedia policy:

I don't care if i have to have a sorce or not, its stupid to delete just cause their is no source, What i post is the truth

— 174.48.33.49, Talk:Planet Dinosaur

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

— The Wikipedia Community, Wikipedia:Verifiability

Chris (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The battle's over

You win, you've locked it, i've tried so many times to re-add the animals but can't because of you! I hope your happy. Oh, one more thing, when it comes to prehistoric life, You Guys ARE IDIOTS!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.33.49 (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are an idiot. Thanks for admitting that. But seriously, it's obvious that you're guessing, because you missed out an animal we know is in. So yes, you do fail, and we ARE happy. 84.12.137.145 (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The article will not be locked forever. However, if you refuse to co-operate, and continue acting the way you have been, then I'm afraid it will be locked again, and most likely for longer. Your choice as to how you behave. 84.12.137.145 (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Guys, GUYS!!! Settle down, please! If you want to re-add them, but someone else keeps removing them, sometimes it is best to discuss it on the articles talk page, which would be this talk page in this case. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 21:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And if you guys start doing this again, I will alert admins. Whether it is to punish you two, or to semi the article to prevent you both from continually doing this, I will alert admins if this continues. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 21:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Newsflash, he is incapable of listening to reason. 85.210.176.48 (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No one is incapable of listening to reason; they choose not to listen to reason. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 23:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A question in regards to upcoming episodes

Are their any sources even remotely suggesting that the following episodes will feature taxa with no seen CGI models like Rahonavis? If so, deleting shall begin if you allow me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.103.78.31 (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It is mentioned on the official BBC website. 85.210.190.123 (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem I have with 174's guesses

Well, I think that says everything. They are guesses. And the main evidence I have comes from his dinosaur list for the second episode, a whole week before it aired. Comparing the two lists, he claimed that Alectrosaurus and Therizinosaurus were in that episode, even though they weren't, and he failed to guess that Sinraptor and Jeholosaurus were in it, even though they were. He claims he knows, but when he can't get his lists right, it's obvious, to me, that he is guessing. Therefore, his edits are not of any warrant. 85.210.176.48 (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, guys you don't believe the Planet Dinosaur Database, well, here's what I found. Carcharodontosaurus having a tug-of war with Sarcosuchus. Stop dealeting the creatures! In the intro, Therizinosaurus and Tyrannosaurids are seen batteling. Also, just because he didn't list Sinraptor and Jeholosaurus didn't mean he fails at guessing, it was an educational guess PDBBC (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, it's "deleted", secondly, as I have already told you, it's not Therizinosaurus, and if you'd read the Planet Dinosaur book, you would know that, thirdly, fansites, as stated by Wikipedia rules, are NOT reliable, even if they get their facts from reliable sources. You need to get them from elsewhere. Fourthly, since when have educated guesses been allowed? Here, you ought to read this...[1]. Read it well and then you'll understand why what 174 is doing is wrong. 85.210.180.183 (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

The write-ups for each episode seem to be largely copyed and pasted from the BBC website. I think some proper write-ups as to what happens in each episode would be better, personally. 85.210.180.183 (talk) 09:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Not just better, necessary. If they are cut and paste, they are copyright violations and will be deleted. Barsoomian (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Mistake

In the article (Episode 3: "Last Killers"), I think quoted from the TV series, It says that the cretaceous ended 75 million years ago, when it actually ended 65 million years ago.

If you can find a source for this claim, then by all means add it. --24.36.130.109 (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Dinosaur list

I know have evidence for such creatures appearing in the tv series. I would like it if you would go onto each link and take a look at the website it links to, and look very carefully, so that you can believe me and stop deleating the work people have had a long time doing. So, here are the creatures, episodes they appear in, and the links i found evidence for: Paralititan - New Giants -
Sarcosuchus - New Giants -.. Also, the images in the unofficial trailer and the launch trailer feature shots of the Sarcosuchus that weren't shown in the broadcast, and, to add to that, Sarcosuchus didn't live in South America, as depicted in Chased by Dinosaurs, but only in North Africa.
Skorpiovenator - New Giants -.. Carcharodontosaurus - New Giants -. Now, there is a video on Youtube, called Planet Dinosaur, (just that), and it has footage of Hatzegopteryx eating a sauropod. The only sauropod I know that lives on a dwarf island is Magyarosaurus or Europeasaurus (not sure if that's correct). Also, there is some pictures of Gigantoraptor batteling Alectrosaurus, which hasn't appeared yet, but since the next episode is on the Jurassic and the episode after that is about Mapusaurus and Sarcosuchus, it probably will appear in the last episode, along with the unidentified tyrannosaurids and therizinosaurids. This is from a link that's already on this page! It is the CGSociety. Anyways, check them out, and please approve. I don't want to have an argument. There are so many links that you haven't discovered yet. Oh, one last thing, the link for the Alectrosaurus vs. Gigantoraptor photo (not clip) is at. Check it out, and please be nice, no more FAIL or SUCK AT GUESSING, just regular talk, like this. 70.181.137.35 (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, though, it's really best not to include the dinosaurs until we've seen the episodes. 88.109.19.226 (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Here's a comment posted today by the Director of the show elsewhere:

they will be updated after each show transmits... unverified as it is... the species for subsequent eps are: ep 4: Kimmerosaurus, Predator X. Ammonite spp,, Squatina (a shark), Allosaurus, Camptosaurus, Stegosaurus, Saurophaganax. unspecified azdarchid pterosaur, Ep5. Skorpiovenator, Chaoyangopterid pterosaur, Argentinosaurus, Mapusaurus,unidentified hypsilophodont (Notohypsilophodon), Paralititan, Sarcosuchus, Carcharodontosaurus, Ouranosaurus, Ep6. Hatzegopteryx, Magyarosaurus, Troodontid...genus...Bradycneme, Nothronychus, Zuni-tyrannus (vernacular name given to as yet un-named early tyrannosaur from Zuni basin), Gigantoraptor, unspecified oviraptorid, Alectrosaurus, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.123 (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

-- Though it is from an IP account, so it can't be quoted as a source. So just use it as a starting pojnt. Barsoomian (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Walking with... ?

This series has been marked as part of the Walking with... series. I can't see any evidence for that. It's made by "Jellyfish Pictures", a new company, not Impossible Pictures. So I have removed those links.

Also, the number of episodes is the number that have actually aired, not how many are planned. Barsoomian (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just one objection about your statement. Walking with Cavemen IS NOT created by Impossible Pictures (I note that Walking with Dinosaurs, The Ballad of Big Al, Walking with Beasts and The Lost World was aired before the production company, so they also aren't created by Impossible Pictures), but still the part of the Walking with... series. The Legend of the Tamworth Two and Frankenstein IS created by Impossible Pictures (with Tim Haines, the producer of WWD), but these shows ARE NOT the part of the series. First I also thought that Planet Dinosaur isn't the part of the Walking with... series, but it have so many similarities with the others: 30 minute episodes, similar introduce, 6 episodes in a series (about the planning: Walking with Dinosaurs also planned and created many continuations like Walking with Beasts, Chased by Dinosaurs and Sea Monsters), and a co-production between BBC and Discovery Channel. And in some scenes there are camera intractions, like blood splats onto the camera, which is the speciality of the Walking with... series. Keep in mind that. Of course this series just a related show like Primeval and Prehistoric Park, and not directly the part of the series like Walking with Dinosaurs, Beasts and Monsters. --CamoBeast (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's in a similar style. But to be "part of the series" it has to be more, made by the same people at least. And I don't see any publicity stating that it is "part of the Walking With series". You can't just say "It's part of the series because it's a BBC series about dinosaurs that reminds of of Walking With". Barsoomian (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That's why I say that this is just a related show. Walking with Cavemen isn't created by the team of the other series: there was no Tim Haines, no Jasper James, no Andrew Wilks, no John Lynch, no Adam Kemp. A whole new cast and yet the part of the Walking with... series. Why not be the same in Planet Dinosaur? The creatures are looks different, the whole series is CGI, the team are different, but the series builds on the very same style. And this is the real measure. --CamoBeast (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not "related" any more than any random dinosaur documentary. It's "similar". It's not itself a "Walking With..." show. And as such it definitely should not be in the "Walking With" navbox. You have to demonstrate some relation with the original series before you can do that. All you have is "the same style". That is NOT the "real measure". See Walking with...: "The Walking with... series (also known as the Trilogy of Life or Walking with Prehistoric Life series) is a collection of shows that are produced by the BBC and are made by Impossible Pictures." That does not hold for Planet Dinosaur. Barsoomian (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You can't find any documentary about prehistoric life with those similarities except Planet Dinosaur. I said that before and I repeat myself: WWD, The Ballad of Big Al, WWB, The Lost World and WWC are made by BBC, but they are NOT Impossible Pictures productions; WWC had a very different team like in Planet Dinosaur; Primeval and Prehistoric Park are just Impossible Pictures productions and don't created by BBC; Space Odyssey and Ocean Odyssey are also Impossible Pictures productions, but they aren't about prehistoric life. But they are the part of the Walking with... series (Space Odyssey, Ocean Odyssey, Prehistoric Park and Primeval are just related). So do not argue with BBC and Impossible Pictures again. Jellyfish Pictures is NOT a company like Impossible Pictures, just a VFX studio like Framestore and The Mill in the other shows, so this is not an objection. So what is the proof if not the similarities? If I waiting for your agreement the show will never be in the navbox.

In Planet Dinosaur Files (a spin-off series) there are some scenes from Walking with Dinosaurs, so they must be relating somehow (like a "related show"). And one more thing: Walking with Dinosaurs 3D will be the part of the Walking with... series, but the creator is Neil Nightingale and the production company is the Evergreen Studios, which created the movie Happy Feet. Nobody will be the same as the TV series, just the title and probably the STYLE. Just the similarities are the real measures. --CamoBeast (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Both shows are commissioned by the BBC. That's the only "relation". Any show can use clips from any other, if they go to the trouble to get permission. There is no continuity in creative or production staff or characters. Again, "style" and "similarities" doesn't make them part of the same series. We can discuss WWD3D if and when it comes out. Barsoomian (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Barsoomian. It's quite simple, actually: in order for Planet Dinosaur to be considered part of the "Walking with..." series, it would just need to have the words "Walking with" in its name. Since it doesn't, it isn't part of that series. Chris (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The DNA connection between WWD, WWB and planet Dino is that they were made through the same department at the BBC (science). Crew-wise Nigel Paterson is the only connection. He directed 3 of the WWB series (won Emmy) and is director and producer of Planet Dino series... A BBC website of the prog has clips where production memebers talk about how PD was designed to differ from WWD. So I guess same stable and similar but distinct animals.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.61.67 (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

The pterosaur has recently been named a 'Chaoyangopterid'. This was never confirmed in the episode, and in fact no Chaoyangopterids ever lived in Africa. Check the article Chaoyangopteridae if you do not believe me. I realise that the model for this pterosaur was recoloured and used to represent a Chaoyangopterid in episode 5, but this could be addressed in a possible innaccuracies section with a statement like: 'The pterosaur in episode 1 uses the same model as a Chaoyangopterid depicted in episode 5, but no Chaoyangopterids ever lived in Cretaceous North Africa as far as we know.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazthespaz (talk • contribs) 21:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not the only lookalike dino, 'Rahonavis' used the same model as 'Sinornithosaurus' right? Visokor (talk) 10:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that technically is not an innaccuracy, as they are very similar anatomically, as well as both being dromeaosaurids. Frazthespaz (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that there is no evidence that pterosaurs migrated, and although that doesn't mean it did not happen, I would like to stress again that no chaoyangopterids have ever been found in africa. Plus, the pterosaur's colour schemes are completely different, and since more than two individuals of each species are seen in their respective episodes, then this cannot be put down to sexual dimorphism. Frazthespaz (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Dinosaurs listed in the BBC book of the series?

The BBC book of this series has some animals depicted and listed which are not in this article, which I believe is a legitimate source. Here are the ones in the book:

EPISODE FIVE: THE NEW GIANTS -Skorpiovenator bustingorryi -Argentinosaurus huinculensis -Unidentified hypsiliphodont (perhaps Notohypsilophodon comodorensis or Gasparinisaura cincosaltensis) -Paralititan stromeri -Sarcosuchus imperator (a more detailed study than in episode one) -Carcharodontosaurus saharicus -Mapusaurus roseae

EPISODE SIX: THE GREAT SURVIVORS -Gigantoraptor erlianensis -Alectrosaurus olseni, identified as 'alectrosaur' -Magyrosaurus dacus -Nothronychus graffami -Some species of Zuni Basin tyrannosaur, most probably the 'Zuni-tyrannus' mentioned above

In addition to this, the book identifies the unidentified oviraptorid in the second episode (Feathered Dragons) as Oviraptor philoceratops, so perhaps a compromise such as:

-Unidentified oviraptorid (identified in the BBC book of the series as Oviraptor philoceratops)

could be met. On a side note, the chapters that cover each of the episode are in a different order and some have slightly or rather more drastically different names, but cover the same species and subject matter. If these are relevant, please feel free to include them: 1: The New Giants - Episode 5: The New Giants 2: The Lost World - Episode 1: Lost World 3: The New Killers - Episode 3: Last Killers 4: Born Survivors - Episode 4: Fight for Life 5: Taking Flight - Episode 2: Feathered Dragons 6: Change or Die - Episode 6: The Great Survivors

I was wondering if any of these changes (perhaps not the chapter names, although they are mentioned in articles about similar shows, e.g Walking With Beasts) could be granted and that everyone would be fine with that :) 86.138.35.215 (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

CBBC spin-off

Does anyone else think it's worth adding more information about Planet Dinosaur Files? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazthespaz (talk • contribs) 22:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Go ahead. Barsoomian (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Thomasbrass42, 12 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change the writing credit from 'Nigel Paterson' to 'Nigel Paterson and Tom Brass' because Tom Brass is credited as Writer on three episodes in the series. Please see the show's listing on the internet movie database for verification: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1998816/fullcredits#cast Thomasbrass42 (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to watch the credits of each episode to see who wrote it, then edit accordingly? Frazthespaz (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source. See WP:RS/IMDB "content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged". If you are actually Tom Brass, I suggest you fix your company's web page and then that can be cited. Currently on Jellyfish's site we see "Director/Writer Nigel Paterson" , and "MGFX Director Tom Brass". Barsoomian (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello - Please look at the on-screen credits list for each episode as broadcast, which you can check on BBC I-Player here: [2] you will see that Tom Brass is credited as Co-Writer on episode one 'Lost World' and episode four 'Fight for Life' and credited as MGFX Director on all other episodes broadcast so far. I will also be credited as co-writer on the final episode to be broadcast next week. I can't think of a more definitive source that this! If you could change the page accordingly, I would appreciate it - Thank you. Thomasbrass42 (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't use iPlayer, BBC blocks me since I'm not in the UK. If you are really Tom Brass then just get Jellyfish's or the BBC's website updated and that's quite definitive. Or any respectable journal or newspaper to mention it. We can't assume any person who posts under a name to really be that person. (I'm not actually from Barsoom, for instance.) Barsoomian (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I can use BBC I Player, and this user, whether he is Tom Brass or not, is correct: Tom Brass is credited as co-writer for those episodes. Frazthespaz (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Further to the above: IMDB is not a reliable source, see WP:IMDB. Credits could be an RS, if it is available to be verified (e.g. on DVD, or whatever). If you can show reliable sources for the edit, please re-request.  Chzz  ►  00:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello - Jellyfish pictures have now updated their website to include my co-writing credit, so can you please add my co-writer credit to the following epiosodes 'Lost World', 'Fight for Life', 'The Great Survivors' - Please see the credit here: http://jellyfishpictures.co.uk/job/planet-dinosaur - Thank you so much!. Thomasbrass42 (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.48.56.66 (talk)

Since you're described as "co-writer" I assume that you share credit with Nigel Paterson. When I get to see the show I'll have a look at the on-screen credits. Barsoomian (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Nigel and I share a writing credit for those eps. Thanks for amending. Thomasbrass42 (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Episode list formatting

I formatted the list of episodes using Template:Episode list but one editor keeps removing that and making it into a series of headings. I can see no reason why using the template designed specifically for this purpose is in any way inappropriate. The headings can be customised to suit. I added a column for "Era" to indicate the period the episode covers, for instance. Barsoomian (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The table list is normally don't use for miniseries. The Walking with... pages are also don't use this listing. If a series have more than 10 episodes then recommended the list table. If a page have a separate page for the episode list then also useful. But not for a short miniseries. The Director/Writer section is nonsense, because all of the episodes have the same director and writer and this information is in the infobox. Giving the MYA section is also a stupid thing, because under the title there is the time, era and location of the episode. The numbering of the episodes is also nonsense. Everybody have fingers. That is just only for normal series like Primeval, South Park, House M.D. which have many, many episodes. But that would be good if an outsider user decide that.--CamoBeast (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Who says it's "normally don't use for miniseries"? Aside from you. See The Fades (TV series) (6 episodes); The Deep (TV serial) (5 eps); The Prisoner (2009 miniseries) (6 eps), Casanova (2005 TV serial)(5 eps); Emma (2009 TV serial) (4 eps)...etc. And actually someone claiming to be Tom Brass says he wrote 3 episodes, so that credit at least probably will be different for each episode when verified. And you go on to say that we don't need to number episodes, we should use fingers instead? Great idea. We'll call them: thumb, index, middle, ring, pinkie ... but we'll have a problem with the 6th. On reflection, I think you may agree that 1-6 is easier to manage. Barsoomian (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Who says? The creators of the Walking with Dinosaurs, Walking with Beasts, Walking with Monsters, Walking with Cavemen, Sea Monsters (TV series), Chased by Dinosaurs, Dinosaur Planet (TV series) etc. pages. And they are in the same category. They are similar. About the fingers: you behaved now like a 5 year old child who don't know the numbers. But I don't want to discuss with you. You can do whatever you want. I don't care anymore. And about this problem, answer it someone else, because we don't get anything.--CamoBeast (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out those other badly formatted articles, I'll fix them when I have the time. Barsoomian (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That the correct formatting is not used in a specific article doesn't mean an informed decision was made to avoid it, it just means that the person who started the article didn't know how, or couldn't be bothered, to do it, and no one bothered to fix it later. You haven't give one cogent reason why the Template:Episode list format is inappropriate. Barsoomian (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know, there will be some angry users who don't like the idea.--CamoBeast (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that. Barsoomian (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This page IS the badly formatted article. Just look at it's structure: title, introduction, then a half page nothing and then the table list. What an idiot looking page is that?--CamoBeast (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That's your reason? You want to destroy the logical structure to make it jigsaw into a gap in the page? Aside from the episode summaries there are only 2 sentences about the show. The article is lacking information about the production of the show, its history, reception, etc. That should be fleshed out regardless, and it would fill the gap in the process. In the meantime, I reduced the width of the episode list table so it fits next to the infobox (on most screens). You could have done that, or asked me or someone to help you to, rather than simply ripping up the whole table over and over. Barsoomian (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Dinosaur appearances

I think we should put the dinosaurs in the order in which they appeared. MisirWorld3000 (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems a good idea. Go ahead. Barsoomian (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Table

Is it just my browser, or is the episode table on this article poorly formatted? Some of the table itself seems to covered by the infobox, while the text from the covered section covers the infobox. Chris (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean covered as in talked about, for instance, in the infobox, or covered as in concealed by the episode table? (I was not logged in when I posted this) Frazthespaz (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.164.231.237 (talk)

I mean that the episode table is concealed by the infobox, and text from the concealed part of the table continues onto the infobox. Chris (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

In that case, the problem is just with your browser or screen. Frazthespaz (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that. But I tried to make the page a bit more compact by making the episode table 70% of page width, so it would fit beside the infobox (which it does, when I view it, at any zoom level). But it might be simpler to go back to 100%. If and when some more text about the series as a whole, (production, reception, etc) is added, this would be less of a problem. Barsoomian (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Unidentified Oviraptorids

At one point in episode 6, the previously unidentified Oviraptorids are called Oviraptors. Whether this means that the animal is Oviraptor, or this is just a shortening of Oviraptorids, is unclear, but since the book also calls it Oviraptor, I think we should assume that that is indeed the species this dinosaur belongs to. Frazthespaz (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

Shouldn't there be an inaccuracy content? Like how it was proven wrong that sinoraptor was venomous or how it should the centrosaurus died in a title wave and not eaten by crocodiles or floating debris, or how the argentinosaurus look like the brontosaurus from king kong. Aslan10000 (talk) 00:11. 20 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.73.132 (talk)

If you can find a review saying so, quote it. If you just use your own knowledge or opinions, that's WP:OR and not allowed here. And in general, it would be good to have some mention of reviews and both could go under a "Reception" headingBarsoomian (talk) 09:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Someone put a list of "inaccuracies" in the article (copied below for reference). But they are clearly WP:OR or WP:SYN. You have to cite a source for any such statement, not just for the fact, but also that the show is inaccurate. If you want to critique the show yourself, find a forum or blog, don't put it in a Wikipedia article. Barsoomian (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

• The Sinornithosaurus in the programme was depicted venomous. However, that report has already been disproven.
• The feathers on the creatures of Feathered Dragons and The Great Survivors had them have the feathers attached to the third finger. However, they were attached to the second finger.
• The Troodon, Saurornithoides, and Bradycneme lacked wings.
• Some of the creatures models where reused for other creatures. The Rugops model was used for Skorpiovenator, the Sinornithosaurus was used for the Rahonavis, Saurornithoides for Troodon and Bradycneme, Daspletosaurus for Alectrosaurus and possibly Zunityrannus, Allosaurus for Saurophaganax, and the unnamed pterosaur in episode one for the Chaoyangopterid pterosaur in episode 5.since when does opinion about reuse count as fact... the models for alectrosaurus, daspletosaurus and 'zuni-tyrannus' are clearly different anatomically...no evidence cited...
• While most of the dinosaurs hands weren't pronated in the series, the Spinosaurus, Epidexipteryx and possibly the Oviraptor have pronated hands in a lot of shots, minus the Oviraptor as it may have not been using its hands pronated.
• Predator X did not live in Europe (although Liopluerodon, another type of pliosaur did).
• Paralititan is pronounced as "Paralatitan".
• Gigantoraptor lived 70 million years ago, not 75, yet it is shown living at the same time as Alectrosaurus.
• Argentinosaurus can be seen rearing on its hind legs. This is unlikely as Argentinosaurus was way too heavy to rear up.

Reused CGI models

Does this count as an inaccuracy? The only case i can think of is the Chaoyangopterid model in episode 5 being the same for the pterosaurs in episodes 1, 4 and 6. Frazthespaz (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ya I would think so, if the model was not changed at all from the other episodes then it should be labled an inaccuracy. Taking for granted of course we dont really know what dinosaurs look like.MilkStraw532 (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As above, it may be be an inaccuracy IN YOUR OPINION, but to put it in the article you have to cite a review saying that, not just deduce it yourself. Barsoomian (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

FraztheSpaz is wrong, the Hatzegopteryx in episode 6 is clearly a different pterosaur model.Visokor (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I meant the smaller unidentified pterosaurs which appear briefly next to one of the hatzegopteryx in the air. The hatzegopteryx is obviously a different cgi model. Watch the episode again and you'll see what I mean. Besides, I was originally questioning the fact that the reused cgi models was listed as an innaccuracy, since most of the reused cgi models are recoloured. Since the list of innaccuracies has been deleted though, this section is kind of obsolete. Frazthespaz (Talk) 12:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

On another note; the Saurornithoides and Troodon look alike because the programme clearly states the former is a member of the Troodon family. Bradycneme looks the same too, though I'm not sure whether or not Bradycneme was also a member of the Troodon family. Visokor (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It's now thought of as an alvarezsaurid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.59.229 (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Giganotosaurus

I got in a (small) argument with someone over the appearence of something similar to Mapusaurus, but so different at the same time on Youtube. It showed in the first part of the Patagonian adventure, (before the croc sequence) the foot of a creature (maybe Mapusaurus), but they said the bones belong to an animal bigger than T-Rex, and Mapusaurus wasn't bigger than T-Rex, in fact, the show says it was, 10 metres long and 4 tonnes. That size matches Giganotosaurus. The CGI model for this creature looks similar to Mapusaurus, but its bulkier, and theirs no blue on its face. Clearly, for me, this is evidence that this creature is Giganotosaurus. Anybody feel free to comment on it, i want to know and maybe add it on the creatures list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisirWorld3000 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"Clearly, for me" = original research. So, no, leave it out. Barsoomian (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

3D episode

Correct me if i'm wrong, but its now half way through 2012 and i can't remember a 3D episode being aired. Is it worth removing the link? Frogkermit (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The announcement was real enough, so it should be mentioned. I've amended the text to say it hasn't happened yet. Barsoomian (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually this was broadcast on the 19th of August 2012 (http://www.radiotimes.com/tv/tv-listings?sd=20-08-2012%2019:00:00&ref=Home.tvTonight#{%22sd%22:%2219-08-2012%2017:00:00%22}) on BBC HD channel (, so I guess this needs updating. Darthvadek (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

JP3 ref?

Does anyone else think that the fight between the Spinosaurus and the Carcharodontosaurus in ep 1 references Jurassic Park III? Visokor (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Deadly Dinosaurs

Should we mention Deadly Dinosaurs here? It uses footage from Planet Dinosaur... Visokor (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Would this be considered adult animation?

So Planet Dinosaur was entirely animated with no live action shots at all, unlike a majority of other dinosaur-related documentaries. It also definitely was not made for kids, considering the gore, sexual, and mature themes of the show. Would it count as "adult animation" or just general "animation", or would it not matter either way? 73.240.105.138 (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Unless there is an official source that specifically states it was "adult animation," identifying it as such would run afoul of Wikipedia's rules concerning original research--Mr Fink (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)