Talk:Velociraptor/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Vandalism

My improvements to the article have been rejected without justification. I can only assume this is deliberate and determined vandalism.

Don't you people have anything better to do? Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing forelimbs

My english isn't perfect but I assume that forelimbs are in this case the arms/wings of the Velociraptor? The following is mentioned in the article: (the first sentence also referring to the fighting specimens)

Both forelimbs and one hindlimb of the Protoceratops are missing, which has been seen as evidence of scavenging by other animals.

In the "Fighting Dinosaurs" specimen, the Velociraptor lies underneath, with one of its sickle claws apparently embedded in the throat of its prey, while the beak of Protoceratops is clamped down upon the right forelimb of its attacker.

How did they come to the conclusion that the beak of protoceratops was clamped upon the right forelimb of the Velociraptor? Perhaps one of the forelimbs was only partially missing? Or could they come to this conclusion via another route? Stofferd (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be confusing thins--it's the Protoceratops that is missing its forelimbs in this specimen. The Velociraptor preserves both forelimbs, and the proto is biting one of them. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've semi-protected this article. There have been no actual improvements to the article from IP addresses, and between March 29th and April 25th, the only "good" edits were from logged-in editors. Although 58 edits were made in that time, it was nearly all IP nonsense or reversion of said nonsense. The article itself remained virtually unchanged in over 50 edits: [1]. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

OH SHI-

Since when were we able to italicize page titles? —harej ([[User talk:harej|talk] 04:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Extinct Earlier

something doesn't make sence i thought velociraptor became extinct 65 mya why 71 is there a page on the dinosaur page where i can talk about this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslan10000 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Velociraptor, like almost all dinosaurs, died out long before the death of the very last dinosaurs, including T. rex, etc., which lived 65 million years ago. Velociraptor did indeed become extinct 71 million years ago, not 65. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that you have to find what other dinosaurs lived in the time period, like Protoceratops, that lived in the late Cretaceous period, so the velociraptor must live in the same period.--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Protoceratops also lived 75 million years ago, which is still the late Cretaceous. The Cretaceous period is a vast span of time, all late cretaceous dinosaurs did not live at the same time but were separated by many millions of years. The time gap between, say, Velociraptor and T. rex is similar to the time difference between humans and Titanis. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of Name

On this page, it says that Velociraptor means "Swift Seizer" although it means "Fast Plunderer" or "Fast Robber". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stupefyduo (talk • contribs) 01:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not according to the man who actually named it in 1924. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh! So that is why they wrote "Swift Seizer" instead of "Fast Plunderer" or "Fast Robber"--Stupefyduo (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

They're basically the same. Plunderer, robber, seizer, they all mean taking things. Paleo Kid (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead image

Now that we have a good, clear, undistorted skull image from the Fighting dinosaurs specimen, would anyone object to swapping out the image currently in the taxobox, which is a commercial replica? It's very detailed, but that's part of my concern--I'm not sure how much of that detail can be trusted given that it's a commercial sculpture with little provenance info in the file. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree, but I wasn't sure what other editors would think with all the dirt in the background of the image. The Fighting Dinosaurs skull is fine with me, and it also faces the right way. FunkMonk (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Several other lead images in dino articles have been changed to full body shot, looking at Commons there are a few of that kind for Veloci, but I'm not sure if they're appropriate. This one has a cool pose, but the angle is kind of weird[2], this one has that ugly skull that many casts seem to have, is it genuine or sculpted?[3], this one is blurry ad has a busy background[4], and this other shot of that mount is badly foreshortened.[5] Any thoughts? We could also just leave the article as it is. FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I wouldn't object to the WDC mount, which was designed by Scott Hartman so there's very little question about it's overall accuracy. I'd say a weird angle is preferable to weird lens effects like blurriness or foreshortening, which actually distort the shape of the animal. MMartyniuk (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, cool that he designed it, I went ahead and added it. FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Note

Meaning of Name: "SWIFT SEIZER" from the latin word Velox (Swift)+latin Rapio(Seiz) I added this so there would be no more confusion about what Velociraptor's true meaning of name is.--122.57.216.151 (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Latin - English translations, there's no "right" English word to go with the Latin one. English has many words that are nearly synonyms, so "raptor" can mean "thief, seizer, plunderer, rapist, pillager" etc. (anything meaning "to aggressively take). Really these all mean the same thing, but English breaks them out into different versions with subtle distinctions Latin doesn't have. Therefore, we go by what the author stated they meant the name to mean. Every paper has an etymology section so this is not hard to find out in most cases. Osborn meant raptor to mean seizer. The describers of Austroraptor meant it to be "thief". Neither are incorrect. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Turkey-sized

Removed this - half a meter high at the hip, six feet long, 33 pounds, is much larger than a turkey. 24.193.54.240 (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Erosion

I would like this subject clarified.

Why would one persist in the belief of feathers? If there seems to be feathers is that to be entirely true? These paleontologists have no first hand account! It may have been erosion, if it effects vast rock why not bone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.218.173 (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And what, exactly, would erosion do in this case? It would (premise 1) erode bone to give it the appearance of quill knobs, while (premise 2) at the same time not destroying some other part of the affected bone? J. Spencer (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe but can you be certain that erosion can not be isolated to one area? A cliff edge is eroded but not the whole land mass! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.218.173 (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.12.104.77 (talk)

Yes, may bet there is one chance over several billions that erosion would carve regularly spaced knobs on the bones of this dino that would almost perfectly match those of extent birds...that's always a possibility. But then, some of the most closely related species of dinosaurs have been found with actual feather imprints, with exquisite details as even the shape of the color pigments can be seen in a microscope so that even the color of their feathers can be reconstructed. The explanation that these are quill knobs and that Velociraptor like all his closest relatives, had feathers is the most plausible one. NobuTamura (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Topic starter fails at parsimony. Abyssal (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Stalking Michael Buble

Is this worthy enough to be included in the Pop Culture References section? http://bubleraptor.tumblr.com/ 96.52.153.176 (talk) 07:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No, but the redicrect to this article used there gave us this gem: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Velocoraptor&action=historysubmit&diff=86073508&oldid=85984961 FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Skin texture as described by Crichton

In the pop culture section, while pointing out the mistakes made by Crichton, the article states that instead of feathers, Crichton's Raptors were depicted with scales. While wrong about the feathers, Crichton never depicted the Raptors as having scales. In the book, the raptor's (as well as most of the other dinosaurs) were constantly being portrayed with "leathery skin" and "pebbled, like a football". Furthermore, all three movies portray velociraptors with leathery, pebble skin, never scales. This is a simple mistake, and only occurs once - in the "Popular Culture" section - so I feela bit silly pointing it out. However it will bug me if this is not changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artanus (talk • contribs) 00:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit. I decided it was fairer to say that they lacked feathers instead of trying to establish what they had instead, since the absence was obvious. J. Spencer (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's a contradiction here. Archosaur scales aren't overlapping like those of lizards and snakes, and all scaly dinosaurs have very small, pebble-like scales, interspersed with relatively few larger ones. I'm sure Crichton knew this when he wrote those descriptions. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hunting behaviour

I have a question about this. Is there definitive evidence of them being pack hunters? It seems a tad much to make the assertion based on the fact they have found one instance of several raptor remains around a Tenontosaurus. Is there another reason to believe they were pack hunters? They could just as easily have been feeding on carcass killed by one of them, or indeed one that they found. I have read they were scavengers. Dapi89 (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no definitive evidence of pack hunting in dromaeosaurs. Roach and Brinkman's 2007 paper [6] on the topic argues that based on current fossil evidence as well as modern phylogenetic evidence, it is impossible to reconstruct dromaeosaurs as pack hunters with any degree of certainty. However, I am unaware of anything in the Velociraptor article that indicates they were likely to be pack hunters. Am I missing it? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Not only is there no definitive evidence but I don't think any evidence at all has ever been presented for this idea. Just speculation based on equivocal evidence for pack hunting or social behavior in related genera. In fact this is stated outright in the article now that I check (last few sentences of the section Predatory behavior). MMartyniuk (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay I got it. Keeping the "fighting dinosaur" discovery in mind, it would suggest they acted alone. However, it seems that they were, given physical limitations, unable to hunt anything larger, or much larger, than themselves. I wonder then if there is any evidence that raptors preyed on larger victims. For if there were, then wouldn't that be strong circumstantial evidence at least that they needed to operate in packs?
Thank you for the links by the way. Dapi89 (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The Roach and Brinkman paper addresses this point specifically. Since I don't think the paper is open access, I'll quote the relevant part:

Considering that lone adult oras are capable of killing prey more than 10 times their own body weight (Auffenberg 1981), it is not unreasonable to assume that a single D. antirrhopus—quite possibly faster and more agile than the ora and with not only serrated teeth as the ora has but also clawed, raptorial forelimbs and its notorious sickle-like foot talons (Ostrom 1969)—would be capable of killing tenontosaurs 10 or more times their own body weight. With an estimated mass for D. antirrhopus of 70 to 100 kg (Ostrom 1969; Seebacher 2001), this probably conservative estimate of the predation capability of D. antirrhopus against T. tilletti would allow tenontosaurs of 700 to 1000 kg to easily fall within the predation body size range of single D. antirrhopus individuals.

It is also possible that dromaeosaurs only consumed larger prey in scavenging situations. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Thats great, thanks for that. I need to get hold of material like that. I'll see if I can get access through my university e-library (I do a completely unrelated subject). Perhaps a short line about this capability could make its way into the article. Dapi89 (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, since the statement in the paper is about Deinonychus specifically, it might be slightly WP:SYNTHy to stick it in, but I'm not sure. Also, want me to email you the Roach and Birkman paper? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Point taken. Yes please. Thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Jurassic Park's inaccurate depiction

I know most of you probably don't think this is worthy of a section in the article, but I just find it disturbing how few laypeople know what a Velociraptor actually is. Because of Jurassic Park, most people picture the dinosaur as an oversized, featherless Deinonychus. I think a section detailing just how inaccurate the depiction of raptors in Jurassic Park is would be necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, such a section would be largely original research unless there's a book or book that explicitly deals with this which we can cite. I think people can learn the truth about this animal by simply reading the article. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Since it is clear that the novel and the movie feature Deinonychus (or a close relative), which is only called Velociraptor because of the use of a different taxonomy, I think the Jurassic Park content should be moved to Deinonychus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.86.185 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
They're called Velociraptor, whatever their real inspiration, so that's where the discussion should stay. If a reliable source states they were based on Deinonychus, that can be added to the Deinonychus article with a link back here as the main article. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
But a name is just a label and has no meaning by itself. Read the relevant bit of this article:
>The paleontologists in the film and the novel excavate a so-called Velociraptor skeleton in Montana, far from the central Asian range of Velociraptor but well within the range of Deinonychus. A character in Crichton's novel also states that "…Deinonychus is now considered one of the velociraptors", indicating that Crichton used Paul's taxonomy, though the "raptors" in the novel are referred to as V. mongoliensis.[36]
This paragraph is incompatible with your notion that the creatures in Crichton's novel are the same as the subject of this article. The name must have been just a mistake on his part, taking "velociraptors" to mean V. m. instead of Velociraptorinae which it meant in the context in which Crichton originally read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.86.185 (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Velociraptor Claw

Are the claws named? I am looking for information on the names of each of the Velociraptor's claws. If it does have a name shouldn't they be in this article, or at least linked to an article about the name of the claws? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.122.134.2 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Flight

Perhaps Velociraptor spent most of its time on the ground but could fly energetically for short distances when there was a pressing reason, to escape danger, to catch prey, modern Galliformes do something similar. Dinosaurs did not have the flexible spines of mammals which forced many to evolve bipedalism for running fast. Forelimbs of bipedal dinosaurs could relatively easily evolve to become wings, even if flight was energetic and too costly for general locomotion dinosaurs may still have flown when there was a good reason eg to cross a ravine or a river, to escape a larger predator or a forest fire.

Experts please say, is this reasonable? Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Velociraptor forelimbs were already wings, but it is nearly impossible that they flew, even a little. The wings are much too short compared to the body and they could not raise the arms above horizontal (i.e. it was physically impossible for them to flap). Galliformes, even those that rarely fly, have huge wings with powerful musculature, large breastbones, etc., all of which eudromaeosaurs lacked. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Do we know more about the forelimbs of Velociraptor than we know about Bumble bee flight? Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC) If Velociraptors did powered flight even rarely one can assume they would have evolved stronger wing musculature, they may have used their wings to glide or as parachutes if they fell. If Velociraptors climbed trees or lived in mountaneous areas/areas with cliffs being able to fall safely from a height could matter. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

We know that bird wings and insect wings are totally different structures, and it's safe to say that Velociraptr was not fly using its wings in a rapid hovering motion like helicopter rotors ;) You'd expect its wing anatomy to be like that of hummingbirds if that was the case! (also, please note that the whole "scientss can't figure out how bumblebees fly" thing is a complete myth). It's possible they could have used their wings to break falls or parachute. However we also know that they lived in the high desert, and did not live in mountainous environments or environments where there were any tall trees around to climb. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Flying velociraptors would make a good addition to The Wizard of Oz, though... Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 18:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Popular Culture section

Should the Velociraptors in Jurassic Park really be described as "antagonists". As primal animals that must kill to survive, they don't know the distinction between right and wrong and thus cannot really be called "evil". In my opinion, they are neutral characters that merely slow the protagonists down. They aren't any more villainous or sinister than the tornadoes in the movie Twister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the word "antagonist" has the same moral subtext that a word like "villain" does, so it's probably fine as it is. Abyssal (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

In writing, the 3 main conflicts are Man vs Man, Man vs Nature, and Man vs Self. I'm sure crocs & mosquitoes antagonize plenty of folks.99.252.114.222 (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you should actually look up the word "antagonist," unsigned. You seem to be confused about its basic meaning(s). Milhisfan (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Crichton's Depiction Of Velociraptor Skin (Response)

In response to your earlier comment of Michael Crichtons depiction of velociraptor skin, Jurassic Park (The Book) does not state as you have. Crichton clearly depicts the Velociraptor as having leathery skin - Yes. But scales? Scales of great definiton are not presented in the book. I beleive his depiction to characterise mottled skin; like that of a modern reptile - covered in leathery yet miniscule cobbles. Not scales like those of a snake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.243.134 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Jurassic Park

Looking at the talk page, this has pretty much been beaten to death, but I wanted to bring this up. In the header, it states that "In the films it was shown with anatomical inaccuracies, including being much larger than it was in reality and without feathers." However, the Velociraptors in the third movie ARE depicted with feathers. I don't have a source for this, but the claim that they do not is unsourced as well. I'll try to find a picture of them. Sdcrocks (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I just saw that in the Popular culture section it mentions the inclusion of feathers in III, however, if that statement is going to be kept in the beginning, it should be changed to include the third movie's velociraptors. Sdcrocks (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't see an issue. The first part is clearly talking about the movie Jurassic Park, not Jurassic Park III. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, all things to do with velociraptor on Jurassic Park were made before the separation of the raptor's larger relative and itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.150.12.93 (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The "Velociraptors" in that horrible abomination posing as a jurassic park film were so Atrociously underfeathered that you can't say that the Third movie contained feathered Raptors--50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Jurassic Park shows monsters, not animals. Most movie house goers wouldn't pay for realistic animal documentation, they want to see hyper-stylized monsters. I think, all scientists who took part in this are not to trust, because they bought into that big money project and still tend to defend it. Jurassic Park misrepresents a lot, it's pretty much all nonsense because of average people's weird likings. So why talk about that film anyway? Demoiselle Clarisse (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Not a single feathered dinosaur had been found when the first JP movie came out (if we don't count Archaeopteryx), so criticising it retroactively is pointless. It deserves a lot of credit for explaining the bird-dinosaur link to laypeople, which wasn't widely known at all back then. The sequels, however, have no excuses. FunkMonk (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

J. Spencer's reversions

I'll be reversing J. Spencer's rejection of my contributions for the following reasons, starting with the most obvious.

First, and scientifically the least significant, though most vividly representative of the character of his changes, is his blocking of the simple truth that much of the left rear limb of the _P_ is visible. Even though he has taken the trouble to hide the references to the Denver Fowler image that shows it best, you can even see the left rear leg in the image of the fighting pair that remains on the page. I hope I won't have to produce a picture with a big arrow on it to show where left hind legs usually are.

Second, his reversion to the original error that offered 'explanations' for differences between Velociraptor's teeth and other features as enhancements to prey catching which all other predatory theropods would have had to do: it cannot be any kind of explanation if the difference between two or more animals doing exactly the same thing is not explained. The disparity in size between front and rear tooth serrations could easily be evolved by types with similar size serrations if it were evolutionarily worthwhile: it's not a 'fluke' that _V_ stumbled across such a 'lucky beneficial mutation'. It was there for a reason, and that reason Must be explained by other differences elsewhere, be they physical or behavioural. In short, to repeat, the original 'explanations' were simply not explanations – and even if those claims were good enough for the original works they were published in, they're not good enough for Wikipedia.

The principle of Veliciraptor's teeth being significantly less able to withstand sideways forces is now widely accepted amongst those who know the issues, and would be completely endorsed by specialist mechanical engineers without needing any experimental 'confirmation'. All this is true whether JS likes it or not.

JS wants it to be claimed that the tail could not bend vertically. At All! So it was like a glass rod? Saying the stiffening had the effect of "...preventing vertical movement between vertebrae" means there was no vertical bending possible. Take a look at the tail of the fighting _V_. Notice those bones ventral to the rest of each vertebra in the front half of the tail? The ones between the main parts of successive vertebra? Those are chevrons, and they are both intermediate, and Ventral. That means the tail, certainly the front half, has bent, and in a Vertical direction. That's the direction JS wants to claim afforded no flexibility at all. Although chevrons cannot be clearly seen in the rear half of the tail, we do still see the stiffening rods, which, as in the proximal half of the tail are on the inside and outside of the curve. This means there has been no twisting of the tail, and it means the distal part of the tail is also bent in a vertical plane. Even in the distal two-thirds of the tail there is clearly a bend in excess of 60º. Don't try to claim this is post-mortem distortion, or indeed that the tail could not bend in a vertical plane.

Again, the original offered an explanation of the tail as an aid to a function that all predatory dinosaurs shared. Why would they not make the same adaptation to '...balance and stability particularly at high speed...'? There is no explanation here, period.

Wanting to say the _V_ lies 'underneath' the _P_ gives the impression that, in plan view, much of the two would coincide. My description of: '...on its side, to the right of the Protoceratops ', is much clearer. Since they are obviously both on the ground, and it is clear the _V_ is lying down, and the _P_ is standing, then on average the _V_ will be lower than the _P_ but in standard English usage, saying that one is underneath the other is misleading.

The carotid and jugular blood vessels both exist as multiple branches throughout most of the neck. It is a common misconception that there is 'one' jugular or carotid. In any case there would have to be at least two of each. I have no idea why it would be desirable to reverse my clarification of this.

The claim that Manning's BBC experiment 'tested' the slashing hypothesis implies that at one or more theories might be refuted depending on the result of the experiment. However, to do this, Every single way in which the slashing claw might have worked, would need to have been shown to be impossible, in the event that the pig skin were not slashed. Surprisingly, it is possible under some circumstances for an experimental result to refute a whole class of theories... but this was not such an experiment. There were many different possible designs of claw, and many different actions possible. That experiment sampled only one of each. For example, the assumption that the claw was blunt just because the bony core was, has no justification, particularly when claws of birds of prey are considered. And the assumption that it was not serrated was unjustified in the light of what we know of large sabre-toothed predatory mammals. The theory that the claw could have been used for slashing was therefore not tested. It was of course investigated.

Interestingly, because the claw was over engineered, being made of stronger-than-natural substances (including Kevlar and carbon fibre, though I think aluminium, which was also used, is also harder than horn) meant that had the skin been successfully slashed, conclusions on the natural situation would be invalidated. The experiment therefore would have offered no insights either way, whatever the result.

JS has deleted the reference I made to the forensicmed citation. Their understanding of the issue is of no value then?

The issue of the teeth being vulnerable to sideways forces, unavoidable when used in any way on live prey, appears again later, in the part mentioning the eating of live prey.

His last piece of vandalism was applied to my filling out of the theoretical landscape. When considering the significance of longer forelimbs to issues of flight, no major category of theory should be left out, as it was prior to my edit. Science works by offering and selecting theories that explain the best, and simply leaving out excellent candidate theories for no reason at all is unscientific.

As is usually the case, the use of the word 'speculative', used here by JS against my contributions, makes no valid contribution. My claims on the use of the teeth, tail and arms differ in character from the originals they replaced and from anything anyone might ever say on the subject, only in being used in a scientifically valid manner. Science is about creating and selecting theories that explain the most. If JS thinks science needs experiments, then on this page there was only one experiment, it wasn't well designed, and it failed to test any theory on the slashing claw. Experiments are much more tricky and less often used in historical sciences, yet good and bad theorisation still exist.

As usual, to anyone trying to make use of the word 'speculative' (especially for anyone judging other's contributions to WIkipedia), I recommend they read and consider Popper's Conjectures and Refutations, and to note that the words Conjecture and Speculate/Speculation are synonyms. By all means inform us of any serious shortcomings he has identified in Popper's basic approach; this would be useful to know since good science is currently based on Popperian principles. Experimental and alternative hypotheses follow the principle, and did so before Popper wrote anything. Words such as 'test', commonly used by casual scientists, attempt to draw on the authority Popper gave them, even though others use them wrongly.

In the same sentence JS used to summarise his deleting of my entire contribution, he revealed that my web name is included in the informal name I use to refer my publishing. This was not a secret of course, and never could have been whatever names I chose to use or avoid, since my writing usually reveals my identity. I need hardly point out that the publishing of my science book was never likely to interact in any significant way with the world of profit, and it hasn't. But claiming that by referencing their own book an author violates the principle of conflict of interests, would then imply reams of WIkipedia needed assiduous redacting. Authors not only always have referenced their own works in their Wikipedia contributions, but will always be allowed to, on principle. Suggesting this is a conflict of interest in a scientific page is as malicious as it is absurd – as would be any attempt to block referencing a science book, as opposed to a paper, for any reason. There are far to many examples of books cited usefully in Wikipedia.

I'll leave my justifications here for a week or two before correcting JS's reversals. If JS feels my contribution on this page is substandard, he really ought to check out my contributions to the bird breathing pages and remove those too, which were written to the same standard, but in a much more difficult area. He should bring any deletions he might make there to the attention of the researchers in the field, and see what they think.

I myself will check through all JS's Wiki contributions as time allows. I will also be bringing what JS has done here to the attention of the highest wiki authorities, and offering it to the top science authorities as an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangetruther (talk • contribs) 01:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the type of info you're trying to add is not consistent in tone with an encyclopedia and is a pretty obvious attempt to link to your own book as a source which is against wiki policy (and if you want to be taken seriously you might try writing in a style that isn't that of a bizarre, rambling manifesto). Lots of original synthesis going on there. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

1: Don't describe my highlighting of the principles of science as a bizarre rambling manifesto, but thanks for the insult. If the principles were better known and observed I wouldn't have to remind people of them so often. I am taken seriously by genuine scientists I'm afraid, though there's many people in palaeontology who think they're scientists but aren't. Do you have a science degree Matt? If you don't, why are you trying to butt in on issues of scientific principle? What looks like 'news' to you is not a 'manifesto' but basic science – even basic thinking skills.

2: Don't criticise the referencing of a book by its author. That will always be allowed.

3: It looks like you're confusing my justifications of my contributions with the contributions themselves. Making suggestions about the behaviour and evolution of an animal is the subject of this page – it was done in the original and it was amended by me. Science pages include comparisons of theories. Also, in general, don't make general criticisms here without being specific. If you have a valid point, be prepared to get down to the nitty gritty.

Your attempt to use Wikipedia to tell the world that _V_ tail could not bend vertically is as reprehensible as your attempt to tell the world that the _P_ left hind leg couldn't be seen. And my comments on those are rambling? Are they 'original synthesis'? Is it original synthesis to point out when an attempt at an explanation is not an explanation? Name a scentist who would disagree with my points of view on this.

Do you want the world to think that _V_ could kill prey larger than itself with it's teeth? Why is the original of a different character than my view? I can't waste any more time on this tonight but I'll be back.Strangetruther (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

As an experienced WP contributor, I was discomfited by several aspects of your original edits: First, that you introduced large sections of text without any citations (this would be the "speculation"). Second, that other large sections were being cited to one particular book, which a quick Google search revealed was produced by an outfit that shares your WP handle, which clearly treads in conflict of interest grounds. Third, the writing style was, to put it mildly, non-encyclopedic, and belongs in a blog. Were you to present this situation to a group of experienced editors, I doubt that they would consider my actions beyond the pale. As a postscript, your behavior on this talk page has not convinced me that I made the wrong decision. J. Spencer (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't be criticizing anyone's scientific credentials when a short amount of searching shows that the only paleontologist with John Jackson as their name found on GeoRef published in the 1840s, and "John Jackson" is otherwise notable as a person who annoyed Darren Naish and various others on Tetrapod Zoology in the comments section of blog posts such as these: http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/06/08/birds-come-first-hypothesis/. At least you finished your book. I'm not sure what you expect to prove by going through my edits, all 24,800 of them (that are currently live), but I hope you like ornithopods, disambiguations of morphology, and reverting where people decided that Tyrannosaurus should be five feet longer, Parasaurolophus lived for the entire extent of the Campanian and Maastrichtian (or six thousand years ago), and that we really needed to know what Pokemon looks like Ankylosaurus (and some fool thing to do with a video game, Stokesosaurus, and glasses). I don't know how far you'll get, though, because people who come in with the attitude you're displaying on this talk page usually end up blocked sooner rather than later. J. Spencer (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Well 24,800 would take a long time. At the end of the day though, whatever rules we try to use to help maintain quality, the result has just gotta make sense. I approached this page pleasantly but was not surprised to be met at some stage with undeserved resistance, indeed resentment, which has so often greeted contributions to palaeontology from other sciences. Those who operate in a number of areas realise palaeontology is a terribly isolated discipline. I may seem alien but that’s because I come from the heart of science, and palaeontology is on the edge. It’s easy to fall into the trap of categorising ideas as either our stuff or rubbish, but the small fraction of novel offerings that are good, make up the vast majority of advances in any field. Helping to replace newness by some other criterion of judging scientific worth, was the reason behind the list in this: http://sciencepolice2010.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/sciencepolice2010-launches/, which might be the reference that best defines me to those who want to find out. The same lesson has had to be given too often, over too many years. If all I contribute is a greater willingness to accept the wisdom of unfamiliar disciplines into the field, it will have been enough. Style of writing can always be changed, but easily understood words don’t always sound encyclopediaish, especially these days. Another problem is the necessity to see facts not as knowledge but beliefs. The ‘fact’ concept is tremendously damaging to science, but when talk is of theories, as it must be, that also doesn’t sound encyclopediaish. As for mentioning my book, it not only investigates Velociraptor’s lifestyle and evolution in more depth than any other source I know, but many Wikipedia users would feel disappointed not to have been told about it so they could make their own choice as to the usefulness of its insights. When I did mention it, it was not meant to justify what I'd written but as an avenue of further investigation of it.

Finally, my discussions with Wikipedia will be inevitable, and if anyone can introduce me to the right people I’d appreciate it. Strangetruther (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"The right people" to talk to would depend on the question, be it procedures, formatting and templates, and so on. I could probably find someone for the "nuts and bolts" of content editing, although I'm not as active as I used to be, so my contacts may also no longer be active. I don't follow the winds and currents of the administrative side as much.
Concerning the article, I'd first like to know if you have a citation or two that could be associated with the following sections of text:
  • "it wouldn’t explain why all predatory theropods didn’t evolve the disparity to this extent. Struggling prey apply forces in all directions; food though, through which the unusually hooked teeth of Velociraptor would be drawn in a controlled backwards direction, can be constrained to apply force mainly on the back of the teeth during carcass dismemberment."
  • "Alternatively, if a predatory ancestor already flying and therefore with long forelimbs, used them to capture prey, it could be pulled on to a predatory foot claw, later inherited and demonstrated by the fighting Velociraptor. The unusual length of the forelimbs would explain why predators without such limbs needed heads and teeth of a different and stronger design. Velociraptor’s larger close relatives’ heads and teeth seem designed to assist the limbs in capture and killing." J. Spencer (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The first point deals with the example of “Difference between A and B ‘explained’ by factor C which however they both share identically”. That’s a violation of a basic thinking skill equivalent to saying car A is more expensive than car B because it has wheels. No ref needed for weeding out that sort of thing. This is an example of a change not needing a reference, and of course there are an infinite number of these. If you’re asking for a reference justifying different pressure on the back of the teeth than on the front when a jaw like that rips up prey... well it’s not really that much of a claim is it. Remember, we are here to explain things to the public, and sometimes that amounts to no more than pointing out the link between certain things they either know already or would agree with if told. At the end of the original version the public would not only be misinformed but they’d be mystified as to the reasoning process. At the end of the new version they would understand perfectly without introducing anything that wasn’t already obvious.

The second point deals with the claim that long arms used for RPR (which would also apply even if the prey weren’t being stood on) might explain long arms that were ‘later’ used for flight. This however misrepresents the theoretical landscape since at least one well-known alternative theory also links long arms with both predation and flight in a different way, but the public is not being told about this; they will thus be unjustifiably led to believe that long-armed predation supports "Velociraptor to flying forms” better than "flying forms to Velociraptor". We don’t really need to give a reference for this but if we did, you will probably know that 10% or more of those already listed on this page would do.

I hope that will be the end of it now. You didn't complain much about the article before I fixed it despite its multiple errors, but your use of "First..." suggests a long and perhaps endless list of complaints you hope to work through. Strangetruther (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

To Dinoguy2:

I don’t know how many times you’re going to need to be told this but it’s already been too many:

APART FROM THE PRESENCE AND STRUCTURE OF BONES, ALL DISCUSSIONS ON FOSSILS ARE ISSUES OF THEORISATION. READERS WANT TO BE TOLD THE ISSUES.

THAT is the reason why “wouldn’t explain” is exactly what you’d expect when dealing with the Conjecture And Refutation of a subject reconstructing ancient behaviour.

In one way, your first token attempt to address detail, in your 150 byte adjustment, is a good sign, though it highlights the pointlessness of your effort: you’re still trying to emphasise that the tail can ‘at least bend sideways’, when, as I have pointed out, the misleading futility of this is made clear in the accompanying image with a 60º vertical bend! So you’re merely highlighting your own folly.

One of your problems is not understanding that an encyclopaedia is NOT a bag of facts. It may seem like that for certain physical sciences but since Encyclopædia Britannica first appeared, the establishment of “facts” has changed to a process of posing null hypotheses that might explain, and attempting to refute them – though note, only probabilistically.

When you understand the nature of knowledge you realise that insisting on sounding like Encyclopædia Britannica is like insisting on going to work on a steam engine. However, an encyclopaedia IS there to list significant explanations. It is the explanations you hate that you are trying to prevent by using every standard critical term you can think of. “Editorializing”. Is that what you mean by making the minimum change possible to reverse a lie without rewriting the whole section? Don’t use that word again.

Don’t use the word “unsourced”, since everything I say I can source from my book. Don’t criticise my book on the grounds of peer review since 99% of the books appearing in Wikipedia are not peer-reviewed. This includes Greg Paul’s books. (NB: Peer review is never even mentioned in either of Popper’s main science books.) No other dinosaur writers have degrees in both biological science and the information science behind cladistics, not to mention a real understanding of the elements of sound theorisation. This includes the understanding that an explanation must be able to generate the observations. An explanation of the difference between two predators cannot be that it helped one hunt and eat better.

I am lodging a formal complaint about your interference, where you attempt over and over again to present an image the public can see has two hind legs and claim there is only one, and all the rest of your indulgence of stubborn ignorance. For convenience, it can be shown as violating the following Pillars of Wikipedia:

“Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers...”

In other words, it lists significant information. Areas consisting of theories should have the significant theories listed, and some of their salient points explained. Blatant rubbish, particularly that refuted by photographs actually occurring on the page, is not to be considered.

“Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner...”

It’s clear you’re trying to block all the views I subscribe to, even when it means arguing black’s white. You will grab the phrase “Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here...”, claiming I am an editor... ignoring the facts that I am also the author of a significant source, and one justified by an unusually deep justification in multiple academic disciplines! This means you don’t want any editor ever to include any information they have produced themselves!!!

“Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone, as their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time. The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule...”

Meaning: your habit of throwing words like “editorializing” and “sourced” around without considering the detailed issues, puts you precisely into the category of problem that final pillar was coined to protect Wikipedia against.

Finally: if you don’t like arguing details, and you haven’t got a single meaningful science qualification, don’t argue with those in the habit of making significant scientific contributions to multiple fields. Strangetruther (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"“Editorializing”. Is that what you mean by making the minimum change possible to reverse a lie without rewriting the whole section? Don’t use that word again."

Writing commentary on a verified statement which is written in an editorial voice is editorializing. "Here is a fact. Here is what is thought [by the editor] about that fact." This is inappropriate, as is citing barely published manifestos full of extremely idiosyncratic ideas. "you haven’t got a single meaningful science qualification, don’t argue with those in the habit of making significant scientific contributions to multiple fields." Argument from authority is a basic logical fallacy. "Don’t use the word “unsourced”, since everything I say I can source from my book." So are Alan Feduccia's, but as those are clearly a minority opinion, they are relegated to anecdotes like "While some researchers have suggested x, this is not currently supported by a majority of published research." "Again, the original offered an explanation of the tail as an aid to a function that all predatory dinosaurs shared. Why would they not make the same adaptation to '...balance and stability particularly at high speed...'? There is no explanation here, period." Where in the text does it say this adaptation is unique to Velociraptor? That would be ridiculous simply because it's common to most dromaeosaurs. "Adaptation" does not equal "synapomorphy." You're arguing against a straw man here, or you misunderstood the text. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute

I've protected this page for a while so that a consensus can develop regarding the newly-added text. Protection is not an endorsement of the current text. Editors are reminded to source their edits and refrain from undoing each other's edits. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI, John V. Jackson recently lodged a complaint on the Wikipedia-l mailing list where he has vowed to "find the 100 most influential loud-mouthed Wiki-haters on the net" and presumably get his text reintroduced into this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Editorial Error

The sentence

Long bony projections (prezygapophyses) on the upper surfaces of the vertebrae, as well as ossified tendons underneath.

Is not a sentence and needs to be fixed, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it.--65.96.242.22 (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Department of redundancy department

I am currently in the process of reading over the article and the section on pack hunting to me seems to read quite poorly. This mainly seems due to repetition.

This: "Remains of Deinonychus, a closely related dromaeosaurid, have commonly been found in aggregations of several individuals. Deinonychus has also been found in association with a large herbivore, Tenontosaurus, which has been seen as evidence of cooperative hunting.[27][28] The only solid evidence for social behavior among dromaeosaurids comes from a Chinese trackway of fossil footprints, which shows six individuals of a large species moving as a group, though no evidence of cooperative hunting was found... Therefore, while Velociraptor is commonly depicted as a pack hunter, as in Jurassic Park, there is only limited fossil evidence to support this theory for dromaeosaurids in general, and none specific to Velociraptor itself."

is directly followed by this: "The pack hunting theory was based on a discovery of several specimens of Deinonychus found around the remains of a Tenontosaurus. No other group of dromaeosaurids has been found in close association"

Which says almost exactly the same thing.

I was going to just remove it myself, but thought I'd better make _absolutely_ sure that nobody wants it to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomopteryx (talk • contribs) 11:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Feather section under description?

Since the feathers section is only descriptive it seems it would make more sense under description? Also nice tog et the point across earlier in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

A little quibble with the IPA..

Trying to read the IPA, I keep getting "Velosirapter" or "Vailosireaptore" as the pronounciations, but I always hear it pronounced it "Veloci-raptor" (portmaneau of "velocity" and "raptor") or "Vel-osi-rap-tore" ("Vel" prounounced like "Veil", "osi" like "ossified", which is the prononciation I mostly use). Is this just me being bad with foreign language or is the IPA actually right here? Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate description of the Raptorial claw

it is stated that it is "to tear into prey, delivering a fatal blow" in the article despite the fact that Deinonychosaur claws were not designed for ripping and slashing, rather for prey restraint. is this vandalism?--65.96.242.22 (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This could be vandalism because anyway, the latest research has revealed it used its claws to grip onto its prey, according to Walking with Dinosaurs. Raptors adapted to forests, such as Microraptor and Sinornithosaurus used their claws to grip onto trees instead of prey.Jk41293 (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The feathered reptile

The scientists in 1980, found out that the velociraptor was not scaly, but that it had feathers. The scientists were shocked at the new discovery. They had to find out more about the extraordinary velociraptor soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishlover2 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2015

94.138.77.30 (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Lollipop

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NiciVampireHeart 12:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Should we have two reconstructions in the arcticle?

No, this isn't a whole "we needz scaeled illuztration, too!" post; I'm too much of a scientific mind to try and say such a thing. :p

I was thinking that, since plumage distribution varies among modern birds due to niches and heat distribution (and that not even palaeoartists can choose to what extent animals like Velociraptor were feathered), maybe we should include both the illustration by Matt which shows a more accipitrid-style reconstruction, as well as have a reconstruction with naked legs and a naked neck, since both versions are pretty realistic until we find any evidence to suggest one or the other is not the case in Velociraptor specifically. Outside of phylogenetic bracketing (which is still somewhat of an issue, as we lack any eudromaeosaurians with preserved integument patterns with which to draw from, last I recall), at least. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Why? What on earth would be the point of that? So I guess you want us to go around to every dinosaur article and do an illustration of every possible distribution of integument then? Tomopteryx (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
In any case, we already have thee restorations in the article, showing different plumage, so the request appears to be moot. Perhaps he didn't look through the article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

celý špatně

velociraptor vypadal úplně jinak měl 15 cm dráp kterým zabíjel kořist byl velice inteligentní dokázal se dorozumět měl velice sinchronyzovaný lov ve skupinách byl to nejinteligentnější dinosaurus co kdy žil dokázal zavolat opomoc atd....

File:Velociraptor (movie canon) - Park Pedia - Jurassic Park, Dinosaurs ...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.30.49.75 (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Judging from what I've been able to make sense out of the Google Translate version of this post, you seem to be indicating that the reconstructions in this article are incorrect, in which case you're mistaken, for the "Velociraptors" in Jurassic Park are, in fact, based on Deinonychus, but have the size of Achillobator. And real-life Velociraptor was about as intelligent as an emu or ostrich; even Troodon, the smartest dinosaur, wasn't much more inteligent than that. Overall, you're basing this criticism on highly inaccurate knowledge of the genus. Also, as a word of notice for future messages, if you ever do come back, do try and translate your messages into English before posting; if you wish to use Czech, it's much more convinient to do so on the appropriate version of Wikipedia. Raptormimus456 (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Raptor

How come every type of raptor displayed on Wiki has a different definition for the word raptor, the word raptor doesn't change just cause they put utah or dakota or veloci in front of it, raptor is a latin word that means plunderer, so if someone edits a Wiki and says oviraptor means its and egg seizer, then thats inaccurate, its close but not close enough to change the entire meaning of the word, it would actually mean its an egg plunderer. if it said thief that would be more accurate. to plunder would be stealing, to seize is just to grab something forcibly, its not the same.

That's not quite how translations work. The word "raptor" has no direct translation into English so there is some wiggle room. (A much closer cognate to Latin raptor is French rapere or English rape, but obviously the meaning of that word has changed drastically over the years and nobody wants to invoke the modern meaning of the word). Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
"raptor" can mean many, many words, actually; "thief", "plunderer" and "robber" all seem to be the meanings applied to dromaeosaurs, though. It's "rapto" that means "seizing", which I think is where Velociraptor got the "seizing" definition from. I mean, putting "Velociraptor" in through Google Translate as the base words "veloci" and "raptor" does get "Quick Rapist" as a definition...but "Swift Seizer" is the intended meaning, so we should go with that wording. Raptormimus456 (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2016

Last sentence of the 3rd paragraph, SUGGEST add 2 footnotes
SENTENCE "One particularly famous specimen preserves a Velociraptor locked in combat with a Protoceratops."
first Footnote: http://www.livescience.com/11006-velociraptor-frozen-time-scavenging-larger-dinosaur.html
second Footnote: http://imgur.com/gallery/PFdII
Zzinzel (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This specimen is already mentioned and figured. What do you propose? FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Not done: Hi, thanks for the suggestions. The first source does not seem that reliable to me. I cannot find any note about their editorial oversight. The second source is simply an image, and cannot be used. Thank you. Please see WP:RS to understand Wikipedia policy on reliable sourcing. --allthefoxes (Talk) 00:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Velociraptor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2017

"until it eventually died from" might be better expressed as "until it would die from". It puts it in the active tense and to say eventually died, well we all eventually die. 2605:E000:9161:A500:F8FF:295F:5705:F1CE (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the use of eventually is to help accentuate how prey is still alive while being fed on, but I know nothing of grammar rules so that's just my two cents Cannolis (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Done I rewrote the sentence for better clarity and to better conform to the source given. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Pop Culture segment.

I've looked through the "Pop Culture" segment of the article, and I think it may have some issues I would like to point out just in case they are. I think two things nitpick a little bit too much on the dinosaur. The last sentence says "in reality" in regards to what the dino was as opposed to the Jurassic Park film series. But, as I read through the source cited for this, it does not regard "Jurassic Park" in any way. Secondly, the image in that section kinda nitpicks on how the animal is portrayed without anything to cite that. Also, that link that goes to the whole "Velociraptor in Pop Culture" thing probably isn't really needed because this "Featured" article already explains so much here by reliable sources, as opposed to how that other article is made.Gabeluna27 (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree it could be rewritten, and there are definitely some reliable sources out there that do discuss the accuracy of its portrayal in the movie and elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

has this aged well?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor#/media/File:Velociraptor_mongoliensis.jpg okay so couple things, the feathers should extend to the ring fingers, a quill should not exist and tail feathers are all wrong.--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

"The "raptors" portrayed in Jurassic Park were modeled after a related coelurosaur, Deinonychus"

This is correct, but not very precise. Would it not be better to say "a related dromaeosaurid"? Iapetus (talk) 08:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Edited it to say "deinonychosaur" instead. Is that good enough? Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Changed this to dromaeosaurid; Deinonychosauria has lost support as a valid clade in many recent sties, best to go with something universally recognized. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the raptors in Jurassic Park have more in common with Achillobator, and a character from the book says that the amber was unearthed in Mongolia. Deinonychus is in N. America, whereas Achillobator is in Mongolia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.51.155 (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Since Achillobator wasn't discovered until 1999, it's not possible for it to have been the model for the animals in the book or the movie versions of JP. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it more conclusive to say that the raptors in JP are basically Deinonychus, because Crichton himself said they were based on that animal?

17July15--theBaron0530 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBaron0530 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

In a similar vein, should it also be noted that the reason why the Velociraptors in Jurassic World did not have feathers is because of the blending of their DNA with that of frogs and other amphibians and reptiles, thus creating a smoother, more reptilian look that was expected by the everyday paying customer? JenniferRSong (talk) 04:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[1]

That is pure speculation, and not stated in any of the films or books. FunkMonk (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't even make sense in context, because the skin of the dinosaurs in the film is absolutely nothing like frog skin... Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
"Nothing in Jurassic World is natural, we have always filled gaps in the genome with the DNA of other animals. And if the genetic code was pure, many of them would look quite different. But you didn't ask for reality, you asked for more teeth." Dr. Wu in Jurassic World. JenniferRSong (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
No feathers are mentioned. That they are hybrids to some extend is part of the premise of even the first installment of the series, so that quote doesn't really add much. FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.polygon.com/2015/6/10/8760275/jurassic-world-dinosaurs-feathers

But then aren't many things speculation? How do we know exactly what type of feathers? What colour? Is there some method by which scientists get to know the structure, texture and colour of the feathers, once it is certain that velociraptors had feathers. Polytope4D (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

We have phylogenetic bracketing. The closest relative that preserves feathers would be Zhenyuanlong, so it should be the model. FunkMonk (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

More evidence of raptor pack hunting?

https://www.irishnews.com/magazine/science/2018/09/14/news/brainy-velociraptor-hunted-in-packs--1433388/ this article seems to indicate something like it--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, there is no new evidence provided there. All we have is the old Deinonychus/Tentontosaurus association. FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I see--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2018

Please revert the latest addition by Bubblesorg to the taxobox, which blatantly contradicts the article.

The latest changes identify "BARSBOLD, 1983" as the authority of Velociraptor mongoliensis, which is

a) Nonsensical, as the genus would have had to be named at the same time as the type species.

b) Incorrect, as the article in "History of discovery" reads:

Osborn named the type species V. mongoliensis after its country of origin.

So "BARSBOLD" is clearly not the authority.

c) Based on an unreliable source, paleofile.com, which is run by an armchair researcher with no connections to academia. 2001:569:782B:7A00:F47C:968E:6376:FB5A (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Bubblesorg has been warned about making spurious edits before,it is disappointing that they keep making such edits without seemingly conferring with other editors first. FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
For reference, Paleofile doesn't even say what he added, Barsbold, 1983 was for a lapsus calami, "Veiocirapotr mongoliensis". Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I got Dromaeosaurus mongoliensis from the Dromaeosaurus article--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
None of this edit request concerns D. mongoliensis. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The why did FunkMonk say "the latest changes identify "BARSBOLD, 1983" as the authority"?--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, first of all, that was me. Second, that still has nothing to do with D. mongoliensis. You changed the authority of V. mongoliensis, and Barsbold never named D. mongoliensis. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Then why does it say that one this page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromaeosaurus --Bubblesorg (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Not every page you see is right. Barsbold 1983 named Adasaurus mongoliensis, not Velociraptor mongoliensis. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I see, then who named D. mongoliensis?--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
As you'll see from the page you linked, it's Greg Paul (1988) who considered Adasaurus to be a species of Dromaeosaurus much like he thought Deinonychus was a species of Velociraptor. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Ah, okay--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Ovoraptor should be in the synonym box--Bubblesorg (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Not if it's only a nomen nudum, which we need to establish first. Please, for the hundredth time, do not make questionable edits before reaching a consensus on talk pages, and especially not if you are unsure about the info. I am tired of saying this over and over. FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Ovoraptor was published in "H. F. Osborn. 1924. The discovery of an unknown continent. Natural History"--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
It shows up once, in a list. In a magazine. That doesn't count. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/handle/2246/6347, Are you sure? It looks like a journal--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
https://www.businessinsider.com/dinosaur-facts-the-velociraptor-2012-10 I have another source of interest--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of sources, Natural History lists itself as a magazine in the intro, but is distributed enough for valid names within it to count. However, names within it are not valid because the lack the requirements of description and diagnosis, and therefore are nomina nuda regardless. Ovoraptor, Fenestrosaurus, Ornithoides, each a nomen nudum and thus should only be in the history section if anywhere. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
okay--Bubblesorg (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2020

One of the occurrences of "subfamily" is placed in quotation marks, and I don't see why. Please remove the quotation marks, and use your judgment as far as whether the word should be linked to subfamily. 2601:5C6:8080:100:E97B:B3D2:1144:A3CB (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2020

Hi, could you remove this sentence 

These researchers proposed that, like accipitrids, the dromaeosaur would then begin to feed on the animal while it was still alive and prey death eventually resulted from blood loss and organ failure

and replace it with this one? 

These researchers proposed that, like accipitrids, the dromaeosaur would then begin to feed on the animal while it was still alive, and prey death would eventually result from blood loss and organ failure

An extra comma makes it easier to understand, and since "would begin to feed" appears midway in the sentence, the prey death also should use a "would" construction. Thank you. 64.203.187.82 (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Dylsss (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Class: Mammilia when viewing as incognito?

Hey, I'm rather new around here, but I don't think this is supposed to happen. It looks right if you're logged into Wikipedia but when you're looking at the page from an incognito window the scientific info is showing Mammilia as the class, which definitely isn't right. SharkFinnedGirl (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2021

{{subst:trim|1= 

Velociraptors dont have feathers

TRUE Bad gamr (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

TRUE Bad gamr (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  melecie  t - 04:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Velociraptor/Archive_2&oldid=1185111259"