Talk:Prehistoric Planet

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Requested move 21 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Prehistoric Planet. (non-admin closure) Maykii (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistoric Planet (2022 TV series) → Prehistoric Planet – The 2022 series is clearly the more notable programme with this name. The other programme redirects to Walking with...; a hatnote can direct people to the other article if needed. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per WP:ONEOTHER. An entire documentary is the clear primary topic compared to a recut of a documentary with a different name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per WP:ONEOTHER. I completely agree. This show certainly deserves to take the main title of Prehistoric Planet over a re-edit of a different titled show. Hypnobrai (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. The Prehistoric Planet cut of Walking with Dinosaurs has virtually no notability on its own. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support More notable than the WWD Prehistoric Planet. Also, it looks so good!.Pyramids09 (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. -- Maykii (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but disambig should be kept as Prehistoric Planet (disambiguation), as ONEOTHER no longer applies due to Walking With Dinosaurs: Prehistoric Planet 3D having been added to the disambig page. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

needs a more neutral POV ...

Several paleontologists HAVE critiqued some parts of this series, and they should be represented. Senior dino-boys 'n' girls on here know where to look. 50.111.27.52 (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Social media does not count. End of story. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution of Dispute

I'd like to encourage @John Deer John and @2601:206:8580:35d0:9dc1:58db:1b41:5ec5 to talk with one another on this talk page in order to come to terms with one another. The rest of us are tired of your editing war, and it would be appreciated if you ceased and worked things out peacefully. Hope you figure it out! Trainerkn (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 2601:206:8580:35d0:9dc1:58db:1b41:5ec5 wwas blocked sitewide for vandalism by @Widr:, and will be so for another 91 days unless they are unblocked. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, dinosaurs were awesomebro movie monsters with scaly skin, exactly like how Jurassic Park and, especially, Jurassic World (as well as Jurassic Fight Club) depicted. >:) John Deer John (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@John Deer John: I'm a little confused about your addition... none of the sources look like say this was part of Prehistoric Planet, the text and sources seem to refer to the Jurassic World Dominion prologue- pretty much what 2601:206:8580:35d0:9dc1:58db:1b41:5ec5 was saying. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Better than the so-called "accurate" feathered dinosaurs. They should be depicted as scaly, pronate-wristed monsters that kill everything, like movie monsters, like real animals. >:) John Deer John (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@John Deer John, would you mind explaining how the text and sources you added are related to Prehistoric Planet? I believe that the two users who have contrasting viewpoints with you have a hard time understanding the value of your additions on this article, rather than on another dinosaur media type of page. Trainerkn (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are related, since Prehistoric Planet is horribly inaccurate. "Ew, feathers", "Yuck, clapping hand position", and "Gross, fat and flesh in the body and fenestrae"? Those were valid and proves that dinosaurs were scaly, pronate-wristed, blood-thirsty monsters. See here for evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO-GffLOtC0 John Deer John (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As well as all Jurassic Fight Club episodes! >:) John Deer John (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, this is an article about the television program Prehistoric Planet, not about depictions of dinosaurs as a whole. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But have you saw Jurassic Fight Club? And do you think they (Jurassic Fight Club dinosaurs) are good like how I think? John Deer John (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article relates directly to Prehistoric Planet, no matter how accurate or inaccurate it may be.

These users understand your viewpoint on dinosaurs as a whole, but the article isn't about dinosaur accuracy or Jurassic World: Dominion, it's about Prehistoric Planet. Trainerkn (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to AGF here, folks, but John is an obvious troll. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, still, we have to make sure that the article is as accurate to the subject as possible. Trainerkn (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, see also Skunk where the now blocked IP turned it into an article about weed then conveniently John edited it shortly after to add some additional nonsense about weed and now they have yet again edited the same article. S0091 (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]