The Rules and Regulations of Prehistoric Planet Wiki

As a site intended to be a reputable source for Prehistoric Planet info and anything that has to do with the prehistory, it is important that the wiki is kept clean and reliable. For these reasons, the following rules below are established. Some of these rules may seem redundant and unnecessary given common sense and etiquette online, but to further enforce their existence and other relevant details, some rules needed to be emphasized here, some several times over.

Ensure what you are writing is up to the proper standards

Check your sources

There must always be a modern, acceptable basis for the data seen on this wiki, be it a graph based on established dimensions of an animal, or an accepted, peer-reviewed scientific paper that still holds up even today, or a statement from people involved in the making of the show or other trusted paleontological experts. If your data came from somewhere, add the source as a proper citation.

• Adding outdated sources is fine as long as the article acknowledges that it is outdated and compares it to more up-to-date sources to show the difference between theories then and accepted ideas now.
• Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. However, the sources of a Wikipedia article can be reliable sources (provided one first verifies that the references of the article are indeed trustworthy).
• One outdated part of a source does not necessarily mean that the entire source is untrustworthy, and conversely, a source with a few bits of information that remain accurate is not necessarily an overall accurate source. Cross-checking with other reliable sources is important.
• If a paper has not yet been officially released for public access, do not add it (if the paper is behind a paywall, but its contents are known to an extent, it is ok to cite it).

Be sure that you are using the correct terms

See more: Misconceptions Relevant to Prehistoric Planet

See more: Misconceptions Relevant to Prehistoric Planet

• In accordance with binomial nomenclature, animal names should be written with a capitalized genus name and a species name completely written in small letters. The guide below shows what is right and wrong.

• Tyrannosaurus rex (correct)
• T. rex (correct)
• Tyrannosaurus (correct)
• T. Rex (wrong, the species name should not be capitalized)
• T.rex (wrong, there should be a space between the abbreviated genus name and the species name)
• T-rex or T-Rex (wrong, dashes are not used for binomial names)
• T rex or T Rex (wrong, the genus name is abbreviated, so it must be followed by a period)
• T. or T. species (wrong, one must either write the whole name, Tyrannosaurus, use the proper binomial naming, T. rex, or, if the species is uncertain, write T. sp. or Tyrannosaurus sp. (take note that "sp." must not be italicized), not T. species. Tyrannosaurus species is also not correct, while Tyrannosaurus species, with the species unitalicized, though not necessarily wrong, is not as technical in this context, and its usage within this context is thus discouraged.
• Most animal names should be italicized (hence, T. rex is correct, "T. rex" is wrong). However, there are exceptions for informally-named animals. The only example on this wiki (not counting unidentified animals, which lack proper scientific binomial names and should be written plainly) is "Styginetta", since it has never been formally described. This informal name is not written in italics, and is instead enclosed in quotation marks.
• "Velociraptor" is a special case on this wiki. It is treated as Velociraptor within the series, but is confirmed to be based on remains that may or may not be Velociraptor. Hence, it is referred to as "Velociraptor" (with quotations) when referred to in titles, fauna galleries, and sections where it is important to make clear that it is not confirmed to be Velociraptor, but is simply called by that name without quotations everywhere else, especially in segment plots, where it is considered as Velociraptor outright. The quotation marks in this case simply indicate that the animal's identity as Velociraptor is ambiguous, and is not an indication of informal naming, since Velociraptor is an already-established name.

• When it comes to names that get changed overtime or proven wrong, use the name provided by the show while putting up a specific section that explains the discrepancy.
  • For example Secernosaurus australis is now reclassified as Huallasaurus, but, aside from the part that explains the name change in its own article, the animal is to be referred to as Secernosaurus throughout the wiki.
  • Shamosuchus is actually confirmed to be the distinct Paralligator, but, aside from the part that clears up this confusion in its own article, the animal is to be referred to as Shamosuchus throughout the wiki.
• Be sure that the animal has the correct classification. Read the article first before adding any new classes. For example, one might think that Tethyshadros and Telmatosaurus are hadrosaurids, however, the article explains exactly why they are not, they are considered too primitive, hence, they are only members of the "Hadrosauromorpha" clade, but not the more specific "Hadrosaurid" family within that group.
• Do not use the term "Middle Cretaceous". Unlike the Jurassic Period, which has two proper boundaries that split it into three, there is nothing that justifies splitting the Cretaceous Period in the same way, as it technically has only one boundary. The proper terms are "Lower Cretaceous" (145 - 100.5 million years ago) and "Upper Cretaceous" (100.5 - 66 million years ago), though they shall be referred to as "Early Cretaceous" and "Late Cretaceous" for familiarity and consistency.
• Do not refer to the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary or extinction event as "Cretaceous-Tertiary" or "K-T". The term "Tertiary" is now considered an obsolete geological period by the International Commission on Stratigraphy. The proper term is "Paleogene" (shortened as "Pg", not "PG" or "pg"), therefore, "Cretaceous-Paleogene" or "K-Pg" is the proper term. One should also note that the end of the Cretaceous is "66 million years ago", as "65 million years" is outdated, not due to the time since then actually elapsing to the point that it is 66 million years from today, but because radiometric dating methods gave the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary (a thin band of rock rich in iridium) a more precise age of around 66.043 million years (or around 11,000 years before or after that).

Deliberately adding and spreading wrong data anywhere on the wiki is considered vandalism

That means changing and manipulating quotes (it is advised to first watch the episode to verify if the line you’re quoting is correct), increasing or downplaying an animal’s size or other information outside the accepted estimates set by reliable sources, using and sharing of unreliable sources, trying to push or force your clearly-outdated beliefs in the forum, etc. To behave like an awesomebro (toxic folks who would try to boost prehistoric creatures as exaggerated killing machines as opposed to proper living animals, refusal to accept species, terms, theories, or any other findings as being validated or invalidated by experts) means standing against the very essence of Prehistoric Planet itself, and is thus heavily prohibited. This wiki is not made for fantasy.

• This rule applies to anything about prehistoric life regardless of whether it was a topic presented on Prehistoric Planet or not. Discussing of inaccurate information is fine as long as it is not being pushed or treated as fact, as long as the inaccuracies are acknowledged as such.
• Making mistakes regarding information is fine for genuine mistakes, or facts that are eventually corrected by future research. However, repeated reliance on bad sources will be considered as negligence, which is just as bad as deliberately spreading misinformation.
• When it comes to message walls and general discussion forums, reporting something for the mere reason that it is a fact that you cannot accept (for example, "Spinosaurus is not the killing machine it is depicted as in JP3", or "Troodon's validity has been questioned for years now," or "T. rex is not 18 feet tall") will not be tolerated. On a show and wiki that strives to be accurate, doing so only reveals that you are the problem, and not the post or reply you reported.

No Plagiarism

Contributions to this wiki must be one's original effort and composition; it is better not to contribute rather than insert a disingenuous contribution, which can be considered equivalent to plagiarism and thievery. Plagiarism includes (but is not limited to):

• Content simply copy-pasted from elsewhere. This is the clearest example of plagiarism.
• • If one is to include a quote, it must be within the context of Prehistoric Planet (hence, one cannot simply quote reviewers of the show, or simply any other person who was never involved in making the show). Only use the quote template for quotes in episodes, uncovered segments or other supplementary forms of media, like "behind the scenes" and official statements from people involved. Other quotes should only be written in quotation marks within the main body of the article.
• A.I.-generated work or content of any sort, the wiki strictly prohibits any and all such "contributions" (it is far more preferable not to contribute at all). While fan works are allowed in the forums, no A.I. images are allowed. This is NOT to be confused with official paleontological CT scans, anatomical model generation, or other such professional work, context and logical judgment is key here, as is the case for everything in this wiki.

Not everything needs to be marked as a speculation

Dr. Darren Naish, Prehistoric Planet's lead consultant, sums this point up best while explaining the Islands episode:

“ The sequence also shows more speculative behaviour. What would an animal like Simosuchus do when confronted by a predator, in this case the abelisaurid Majungasaurus? The fossil record is, of course, pretty much silent on issues like this. But when aiming to depict the natural history of the past, we have to assume that extinct animals exhibited behavioural complexity similar to that of their relatives and analogues today… ”

― Darren Naish, Lead Scientific Consultant

Prehistoric Planet is full of speculation, not everything is based on fossilized evidence. Even so, there is no need to say "there is no proof or evidence" for almost everything that occurs on the show. It works for very crazy stuff like troodontids and dromaeosaurs exploiting smoke and fire for various purposes, or creatures that seem out of their supposed place and time, but other behaviors are minor, plausible, and logical enough to not need defending, that is something readers should understand (saying something like "the show depicts" or "this creature may" rather than straight up saying "they did this and that" would suffice). These are examples of unneeded trivia:

• There is nothing to prove that Majungasaurus hunted Simosuchus, nor is there anything that proves that Simosuchus would attempt to look aggressive to bluff its way out of tight situations.
• There is no proof that Ornithomimus can make these sorts of sounds.
• There is no evidence that herds of Barsboldia ever avoided Tarbosaurus like that.
• There is no evidence that a Rapetosaurus would inspect a Beelzebufo out of curiosity, or that Beelzebufo would stand its ground and defend its mud puddle rather than flee immediately.
• No definitive proof exists of Kuru kulla stealing eggs from Corythoraptor (Corythoraptor living in the same place as Kuru kulla may be erroneous, but that is a different matter, the point is that the show depicting a dromaeosaur stealing eggs from an oviraptorid is not crazy enough for us to say "we do not know if the show is correct for depicting this, but maybe").
• There is no proof that Quetzalcoatlus ever encountered and got into a conflict with T. rex or interacted with it in that way in their three million years of coexistence.

Keep News Reliable and Clean

No Leaks

Inserting officially-released content is fine, it qualifies as fair use, but only within reason. If it was not revealed by anyone who worked on the show, it is not meant to be shared, and is therefore not meant to be here. Content not allowed on this wiki (in any place, be it on articles, blogs, message walls, etc) include:

• Concept art, photos, and soundtracks of the show that people involved in Prehistoric Planet did not officially share. If an artist shares the work on their social media or on some other site, it can be put here under fair use (unless they explicitly forbid its usage elsewhere), but only provided that proof of its public release is included as a reference.
• The findings of reliable papers, articles, and theses (regardless of their connection to Prehistoric Planet) that are still not officially released and made accessible (papers behind a paywall are considered already publicly-accessible provided information about their contents is known to an extent).
• Unofficial video clips cut from the show (cutting clips from the Uncovered segments is also not allowed and is pointless to begin with, since links to the official releases of all Uncovered segments on the official YouTube account of Apple TV have been added to the wiki). GIFs and short sound clips are fair game, but narrations and anything more than that are not allowed.
• The whole episode (or links to the whole episode) aside from those released on AppleTV+ or the official YouTube account of AppleTV.

No Rumors

There is already a rule about false information, and this helps reinforce that. There is also a rule about keeping opinions out. Rumors are basically opinions that may turn out to be true, may turn out to be false. Hypotheses and theories based on studies and the views of reliable experts have some limited leeway (given that they are meant to be educated guesses, the scope and limitations of what is allowed and what is prohibited should be subject to scrutiny, best judgment, common sense, etc), as per the rule that allows speculation and says "not everything needs to be marked as speculation", provided the speculation is reasonable enough. Beyond that, nothing else is allowed.

The following are examples of what is acceptable, as they are given proper presentation and justification:

• It is unknown which species of Ornithomimus is depicted on Prehistoric Planet. However, given its size and how it is found in northern regions, it is likely that this is meant to be Ornithomimus edmontonicus, the larger of the two recognized valid species.
• The identity of the elasmosaur shown in the sixth segment of Freshwater is unknown. However, given the elasmosaur's small size and the confirmed setting of the segment (which takes place in South America), it is possible that the animal is Kawanectes of the Allen and La Colonia Formations in Argentina.
• The setting of the second segment of Forests isn't confirmed. It is possibly the Hell Creek Formation, though it could also be the Lance Formation, which is in-line with the confirmed setting of the thick forest setting of a later Triceratops-centered story, the fourth segment of North America.

The following are examples of what is not acceptable:

• People thought Adasaurus is the "Velociraptor" in Prehistoric Planet.
• People thought Rahonavis would appear in the second season of Prehistoric Planet.
• It was rumored that the croc-like creature in the teasers of Prehistoric Planet Season 2 is Mahajangasuchus, but that turned out to be false, as the crocodyliform turned out to be Shamosuchus.
• The show might have cut out Dolichorhynchops to gather more info and fix its appearance.
• The next season of Prehistoric Planet might take place in the Cenomanian Stage, and it will probably feature Giganotosaurus and Spinosaurus.
• We do not know if Alioramus will appear next season, but maybe it will.
• It was not confirmed if Prehistoric Planet planned to showcase the latest speculated behavior about this animal this season, but they may do so in the future.

Sundry Information

No Opinions

Plausible speculation is fine as long as it is within reason and it aligns well with what experts agree on and what the show appears to imply. However, outright adding something that is stated as an opinion is not allowed. Speculations that are implausible given current understanding of the topics at hand (for example, scaly vs feathered depictions of dromaeosaurs, or the current form of a prehistoric animal given accumulated evidence as opposed to an outdated form) are also prohibited.

Minimize Usage of Trivia

Trivia sections are for facts and information that do not fit in other sections of an article. It is not an excuse to insert pieces of information that veer off the subject or fanon things. It is advised to only use Trivia sections as a last resort (e.g. facts related to show production, e.g. "The Mosasaurus in the fourth segments of Coasts was nicknamed 'Hoff' by the production team," which is not important to put in sections about the animal's size, habitat, behavior, etc, and not proper or formal to use within a segment's summary), in normal circumstances, move Trivia section parts to other sections. A few examples that were already moved from Trivia include:

• The presence of cheeks in pachycephalosaurs and ceratopsians. Because of the relation between cheeks and and the types of teeth both families had, the data was justifiably moved to "Paleobiology", within the "Jaws and Dentition" section.
• The presence of feathers in tyrannosaurs. A dedicated subsection in "Paleobiology", known as "Skin" or "Feathers" (depending on whether the animal was plausibly scaly or feathered when fully mature) was made/expanded to include all related info about tyrannosaur skin and integument.
• The true identity of Prehistoric Planet's "Velociraptor". The debacle was already discussed in the opening of the article, and it was also touched in the "Paleoenvironment" (Habitat) subsection of "Paleoecology", as well as the section about the paleofauna of the Nemegt Formation, which disproves that the animal might be Adasaurus given their differences.

Take caution when adding categories

• Do not add new categories without reasonable cause.
  • Categories like "animals that died", "animals that were mating", "animals involved in fights" are unnecessary.
  • Not all of the animal's clades must have a category. This is the reason why there is no "Eukaryota", "Ornithodira", "Ankylopollexia", etc.
• Do not add categories to a page if the article has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
  • One example is adding "tyrannosaur" to an abelisaur page, or "hadrosaurids" to an animal that the article outright explains is NOT a hadrosaur (e.g. Telmatosaurus and Tethyshadros).
• Check if the category was already added. For example, the bird articles are in the "avians" category, which is a more technical way to call birds, hence, the adding of the "birds" category is unnecessary and redundant.

No disruptive editing

Everyone makes mistakes, so accidents can be given some slack. However, constant low-quality editing is considered a disruptive, frustrating, non-productive problem that can and will be dealt with inevitably. Ignorance is no longer an excuse (and is not a good excuse to begin with, again, check your sources and keep the standards of wiki writing in mind) if an editor consistently adds wrong information, irrelevant information, information too minor to discuss, attempts to fix parts that don’t have problems or improve articles only to end up causing more problems or adding non-existent problems, writing not up to wiki standards, and otherwise does actions that degrade the quality of one or more articles. Even if these are unintentional, constantly doing them (regardless of the time it takes between these accidents, how spread out they are, and their differences… there can still be a pattern to all of them) does harm to the wiki's overall integrity as a reliable source of information (not just for Prehistoric Planet, but for prehistory in general), and is therefore not exempt from action, especially if the issue continues regardless of being told what went wrong.

The Accounts of Other Users

Editing the User Pages of Others

• No user should edit the page of another user (such a case will be considered as slander and/or vandalism), except given the exceptions below:
  • If a user in danger of being banned is to be first given their final warning by an administrator (see "Aftermath" section below). Should the user make one final violation, as per the terms of their final warning, the administrators (and ONLY administrators) will record all the banned user's offenses on their user page following their eviction. The user page is then locked to prevent the tampering of others.
  • If the user whose page is being written on gave the writer permission to, or stated that their wall is free for that purpose. But remember that the absence of a no is NOT consent, it is the default response when there's only silence.

Message walls are NOT general discussion walls.

Unless it is a discussion that both of you agreed to have as friends, unless it is something concerning some relevant user activity or something personal (and anything personal that is not relevant to the wiki shouldn't be done here, but on another social media platform, this is also for safety), some conversations are better off placed in the general discussion wall. Do not waste someone else's time on conversations they did not want.

Take note that this rule is not an excuse to dismiss or disregard messages that warn the recipient of the message of breaking the rules. While the deletion of spam or annoyances of any sort from one's message wall is acceptable, any attempt to reply to an administrator's warnings with dishonesty, contempt, and trolling, much less any attempt to remove an administrator's warnings, will be considered an offense.

Remember that this is a wiki

It is not a Tumblr account, a playground, or a place for informal articles. Articles are to be written in American English (of course, with reasonable exceptions, like names, terms, quotes, etc), and only third person writing is permitted. Keep the writing proper and formal. Swearing on articles counts as improper writing (but it is allowed anywhere else as long as it is not meant as an attack, slurs and similarly-heavier offenses are off-limits of course, even if only intended as jokes). In line with this rule, the following must be kept in mind on this wiki:

• No roleplaying. This is not the wiki for that, if you wish, make your own wiki, not associated with this wiki in any way, this shall not be allowed even on message walls, because it is considered clutter.
• No creation of fan-made articles (for example, making a page about Giganotosaurus despite it not being on the show as of the time the article is made is considered vandalism). This is not the official site for Prehistoric Planet, but this wiki is only for official Prehistoric Planet content, not for fanon.
  • Fan-made works are allowed on the forum... but, in-line with the wiki's accuracy rules, fan-made content should only be about Prehistoric Planet, and should not be used to intentionally or unintentionally spread falsehood. If one has artwork of Jurassic Park's Spinosaurus, it belongs in the Jurassic Park forums. If one has artwork about a retro or fictional (of the "not in-line with reality" kind, like dinosaurs from an alternate future, dimension, game, etc) depiction of anything prehistoric, it belongs elsewhere.
  • Fan-made what-if scenarios, predictions, or wishes for future Prehistoric Planet content are reasonable to discuss in comments or within appropriate places in the forum. The forum having dedicated sections for certain types of content does not mean that other rule-breaking content will be permitted anywhere within the wiki.
  • If the animal in question was only seen or mentioned in an Uncovered segment (e.g. Zhenyuanlong, which appeared in "Did Velociraptor Have Feathers?"), then it should not get a page of its own. Instead, it should be placed in the list of uncovered-exclusive fauna. Likewise, there are lists specifically for minor (but still noteworthy) fauna and scrapped fauna.
  • Not counting fossil names (e.g. "Sue" or "Yoshi's Trike"), only one animal name is currently allowed on this wiki, "Hoff" (which is the official name for the old male Mosasaurus in the fourth segment of Coasts). And even then, this name shall ONLY be brought up ONCE in the trivia section of the Mosasaurus article and the specific trivia section of the segments where this individual appeared in (Coasts Segment IV). There are no other officially-confirmed names, so fanmade names like "Hank" for T. rex will not be allowed for formal and fair purposes, no matter how popular such are, unless brought up or adopted by those who are heavily-involved in Prehistoric Planet's creation. In any case, this name should NOT be used anywhere else outside the one mention in the trivia section. Only descriptive, formal identifiers shall be used (e.g. "leader", "dominant male", "young male", "veteran", "the parent", etc.), and only when necessary (e.g. to differentiate multiple individuals or mark notable ones, there is no need for names if only one such animal exists in the segment, or the animals are not significantly more relevant or focused on compared to others of their kind).
    • Unless used officially for the characters, do not use fossil names for characters on Prehistoric Planet. For example, the veteran Triceratops in North America appears to have its horns based on "Yoshi's Trike", but the character in the show is not to be referred to as Yoshi's Trike (again, just use descriptive, common noun identifiers like "the 30 year-old male" or "the veteran"), just as how no T. rex character on Prehistoric Planet should be called "Scotty", "Sue", "Trix", etc, just context-dependent terms like "the father", "the female", "the subadult brothers", "the juveniles", etc.
  • This rule also applies to any term not set within an actual research paper, within Prehistoric Planet, or used by any of the experts who worked on Prehistoric Planet. Examples that go along with and against this rule are provided below.
    • "X-fish" for Xiphactinus is fine to use since it is brought up within the narration of this series. BUT it should not be used frequently (of course, quotes from the show are not subject to this rule), and the proper name, Xiphactinus, must be used more often than the "X-fish" nickname.
    • Dr. Darren Naish, the lead consultant of Prehistoric Planet, referred to the scrapped Mahajangasuchus as a "hippo-faced crocodyliform", so the descriptive term can be brought up, but only in quotes, and, like "X-fish", should be used sparingly.
    • "Hell's Aquarium" is a term brought up in "Sea Monsters" starring Nigel Marven to reference the Western Interior Seaway. But because that show is not related to Prehistoric Planet (and both shows being produced by BBC does not make them connected), any unofficial term used there (or in any other piece of media not connected or related to Prehistoric Planet) like "Hell's Aquarium" should not be used to refer to anything within Prehistoric Planet.
• All images must have a justifiable relation to the wiki, hence, only Prehistoric Planet-related work (e.g. actual CGI or official, publicly-revealed concept art), specific specimens that served as the basis of animal depictions, trustworthy size charts, or images used in the Uncovered segments can be used. Other forms of artwork & imagery, even if about the organism or place in question, will be considered irrelevant (for example, T. rex depictions in other media, like Jurassic Park or Walking With Dinosaurs, or Triceratops artwork regardless if amateur or professional, antique or modern, if it has nothing to do with Prehistoric Planet, it would not be considered relevant). This rule works in tandem with the prohibition of fan work on articles.
• Do not ask questions without giving them proper thought. While there are reasonable questions and discussions to make, the wiki should still be used properly, so do not ask questions without reading and comprehending the content of the relevant articles first. Most articles have references which can help support or confirm points made in the article (and most of these points are brought up several times), so before asking questions, read those first. Some questions, if ridiculous or nonsensical enough, will be considered as trolling or spamming. Treatment of these questions is up to common sense and best judgment. Examples of questions of such nature include:
  • Did Velociraptor have feathers? (dromaeosaur feathering is no longer a point of debate, and there is already an Uncovered segment and long explanations covering that exact topic, referenced several times in the relevant articles)
  • T. rex can see well at night, so it has night vision? And the T. rexes in Swamps are subadult males? (again, the article already explains this a lot, there are several reference links and an Uncovered segment about the animal's vision)
  • Did Quetzalcoatlus actually visit South Africa? (please read the paleoenvironment section of the article)
  • Is the "Velociraptor" of Prehistoric Planet actually Adasaurus? (this point is discussed in the opening and the paleofauna section of the article)
• Excessive self-promotion (Fandom is not a free place to advertise your related website, YouTube channel, blog, social media account, etc).
• More than brief discussion of other irrelevant information, like comparing a show, game, or other media unassociated with the subject matter of Prehistoric Planet to it (for example, a stretched-out justification that the game is relevant because it contains avian dinosaurs, or extensive discussion and comparison of a cartoon character's backstory with the events of a Prehistoric Planet segment).
  • Unless confirmed, discussed, or supported by anyone officially associated with Prehistoric Planet, do not add parallels or comparisons with other prehistory-related documentaries in articles, that is a topic for comments and forum discussions. Examples include - but are not limited to:
    • The Triceratops battle is like the Torosaurus battle in Walking with Dinosaurs.
    • The Quetzalcoatlus duel brings to mind the Dimetrodon duel in Walking with Monsters.
    • At first glance, the design of this creature resembles its version from Jurassic Park, and that scene almost seems like a reference - or is an outright reference - to Dinosaur Revolution, and both scenes seemed to reflect the 2011 show of Planet Dinosaur, while being the opposite of this scene in March of the Dinosaurs, and this moment in Disney's Dinosaur...

Of course, parallels and comparisons of content within Prehistoric Planet are permitted, provided the comparison is a reasonable one. One example from the T. rex segments subpage is this:

• In Coasts, a male T. rex, followed by his hatchlings, leaves the beach of the mainland, ventures across the sea, encounters an enemy living in the sea, a creature of superior strength and size (a mosasaur), gets away from it, and enjoys scavenging a large carcass (a turtle) on the beach of an offshore island by the end of the segment.
• In North America, a lone male T. rex visits the beach of the mainland to scavenge a large carcass (Alamosaurus), encounters two enemies from the skies, creatures of inferior strength, but greater height (a pair of Quetzalcoatlus), and is forced to get away from them by the end of the segment.

This place is not a sanctuary for problematic users

For anyone with a history of undesirable behavior/habits (e.g. harassment, vandalism, disruptive editing, etc) on other fandoms, this is not a place where one can start a clean slate just to enact the same issues. Should any sign of such activity arise, a cross-check of the users (and their suspected old or alternate accounts, if any) will be run. This wiki will not be loose or tolerant of such people, so, to ensure that the wiki stays clean, these could be grounds for appropriate action.

This is not a place for competition

Remember that you are here for the sake of the wiki and the paleontological information it presents and represents, not for the hounding of glory, or getting jealous of the prowess of others, or the playing of games of any sort. On this wiki, whenever you're active, you are free to edit as frequently as you can, because, as a part of fandom, this place is open to anyone who wants to provide proper knowledge, and it is fine to claim credit where credit is due. Of course, this is not to be abused, and the following should be kept in mind when contributing to the wiki:

• Not all pages are open to editing. Pages can be locked for various reasons like the ones below:
  • The page in question is a template running on heavy, complex, or delicate code, and oftentimes, templates require an exact format, or must be restricted to specific, unchanging content, so only the wiki's administrators can be trusted to edit them (if there are any concerns or suggestions for these secured templates, you can contact administrators).
  • The page in question has been vandalized or degraded several times, thus leading to temporary locking. In severe cases, if the article's subject is prone to constant debates, disagreements, misconceptions, etc, the page will be locked permanently, much like some Wikipedia pages with sensitive or turbulent topics.
• Do not break any of the rules here (e.g. by degrading the quality of the wiki with bad edits, adding false information, all other forms of vandalism, etc.)
• Do not edit farm. To repeatedly add, modify, or remove parts that you forgot to deal with is fine (again, given the public, free nature of fandom in general). However, if you appear to be deliberately doing it just to increase your edit... again, competition, ranks, ego boosting, and boasting is not what this wiki is for. That activity is up to the best judgment of the admin.
• Do not assume that this is all about you or your actions, no user on this wiki is the center of everything. If people reprimand you, or the admins revert or revise your edits, unless it is a blatant, unreasonable attack, you are not to assume persecution. Just as admins should assume good faith of editors (at least, at first, let it be clear that "assume good faith" is not an excuse to continue undesirable actions), the editors should also assume that the admins are out for the greater good of the wiki and what it stands for.
• Do not claim credit for something you were not involved in, or what you simply took from elsewhere. Then again, plagiarism, the copying of content you had no hand in, is prohibited in the first place.

Absence of rules does not mean absence of consequence

Prehistoric Planet Wiki staff reserve the right, in their sole and absolute discretion, to add new rules and modify any preexisting ones within reason as well as take appropriate action in response to inappropriate actions that are not explicitly stated in the rules (like contempt for simply getting the rules pointed out to you, or acting like everyone else is in the wrong when rightfully reprimanded, or throwing out accusations, or starting unwarranted drama), meaning that even things not said here yet can still be subjected to fair deliberation and judgment. For this matter, it is best to keep in mind common sense, civility, and decency.

Users should be at least 13 years old to be part of Fandom in accordance with COPPA Law and fandom's terms of use. Therefore, users should be mature enough to be decent people and know what is appropriate and inappropriate not just on this wiki, but throughout Fandom as a whole. One must first think about their actions thoroughly before claiming ignorance, suppression of freedom of speech, or that there are "no technical rules" against things that include - but are not limited to:

• Racism and bigotry.
• Anything for or against religion. This is a wiki where topics of this sort obviously do not belong at all.
• Sexism of any sort. This is not a place for one to keep speaking about one's gender orientation, that is clearly not what this wiki is for.
• Politically-charged statements. This is not and never will be a wiki about politics of any sort, keep that in mind.
• Usage of certain terms (e.g. "Commie", "DEI", "woke") in excessive, incorrect, or otherwise toxic context. For some terms, that would mean almost all - if not all - contexts, so it is best not to use such terms at all.

Small matters that existed before the current iteration of the rules would not necessarily be acted upon, but for big matters that stand against the wiki's purpose and policies will not be given any "grandfather clause" exemptions, and can hence be enacted upon. Best way to gauge whether something is a small or big matter, worth or not worth consideration, is via best judgment and common sense.

The rules should not have to be expanded to state the obvious or reiterate Fandom's general rules every time a clear offense not explicitly stated in this wiki's specific rules are made. Even so, there is no harm in establishing them further than they already are.

Aftermath

Should these rules (or any inappropriate action, as per the final rule) be broken, several things may happen afterwards.

• Clearly malicious or problematic users will immediately get banned permanently. Examples of such offending users include (but are not limited to) mass vandals, racists, sockpuppets, spammers, those who remain ignorant of the rules (and, even worse, those who deliberately disregard the rules) despite being told several times already, etc.
• Anyone making what appears to be a genuine mistake (that is, doing things that are not immediately inappropriate) will be simply advised on what they did wrong without punishment, because in that case, there is no gradual banning (consecutive bans that get longer with every offense). However, anyone who must be repeatedly talked to for similar problems are to be considered problematic users, and will eventually face a permanent ban. It must be clarified that this does not cover outright breaking of rules as straight and clear as harassment, necroposting, etc. Depending on severity, those can either face gradual banning or swift, permanent bans.
• The advice and warnings users get are not on a count limit, and depend on the severity of what they do (something that is up to fair judgment), so do not go counting how many warnings a user has received, it could take as many as three talks (which may or may not include the final warning), or straight to the final warning, or, as clarified above, an instant, permanent ban for those with clear ill intent. For that matter, it's better not to get in trouble at all.
• Lying against an administrator, trying to remove administrator warnings, engaging in edit warring with an administrator's edits or rollbacks when there was a provided reason why such changes are made (one can check a page's history for notes about that) rather than discussing things out in a civil manner, showing contempt against an administrator in any way, or trolling and annoying an administrator in any way, would obviously not help the offending user's case, so such actions should not be done at all.
• There will be no negotiation for any users that have proven themselves to be clearly problematic.
• Banned users will have all of their major and minor offenses recorded on their user page (only an administrator is allowed to do this, if one wishes to add an offense to a banned user's page, they must provide evidence of it to an administrator, or, if an administrator witnessed it, but merely forgot it, simply remind the administrator). This serves not only as a detailed list and explanation of their misdeeds on the wiki, but also as a reminder for other users not to do the same, lest they, too, would no longer want to be welcome on Prehistoric Planet wiki.
• Any attempt to stir trouble (including - but not limited to - sockpuppetry, slander, defamation, even the mere planning of an attack or the harassment of the wiki's staff, even outside of the wiki) will be taken up to higher management for action to be done across the fandom network.