Talk:Velociraptor/Archive 1

message: It seems to be very low. http://www.dinodictionary.com/dinos_uv.asp#VELOCIRAPTOR says 90 kg instead of 15 kg.
:The 200 pounds mentioned there is probably a typo for 20. The 15kg is again from Paul's PDW.
MWAK--84.27.81.59 14:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Velociraptor was 6ft long, not 9. I'll fix that. I suspect the confusion is from Paul's PDW where he considered V. and Deinonychus the same animal. Also, remember most of that length is in the tail, and that birds and bird-like dinosaurs had hollow, light weight bones.Dinoguy2 05:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  weight of velociraptor? 

message: Someone seems to have removed a good-sized chunk of this article, and replaced it with the above statement
Maybe they had something against Toronto?Shralk 02:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Raptors suck"? 

message: Can the opinion that a Velociraptor found a dead Protoceratops be considered valid when the spine of the latter shows it was pulling away from Velociraptor at the time of it's death?
Also, how does said opinion account for the Velociraptor lying on the floor in a struggle with it's supposed carcass? I just think it kind of strange that a carcass could put up such a fight.
Having recently seen this fossil again on the television I would have to concur. The fact that two animals could be caught in the intimacies of their death throes is an event on a Fortean level of weirdness. Nevertheless, this is what has happened, unless one explains their apparent juxtoposition as a freak occurence, maybe two corpses thrown together by a river. Unlikely really but I supppose its just possible. 
I've come across a number of sources that compare Velociraptor and Utahraptor. As far as I know the remains of Utahraptor are very fragmentary. Has a skull ever been found? That would tell us a lot about how this creature relates to others in its class.
I seem to remember that Michael Crichton used the name Velociraptor antirrhopus in his novel. He probably played with the idea propounded in some quarters that these animals were in the same genus. But has mentioned above this lacks scientific credibility. Great when your an author with a plot device to resolve however.
:Someone removed a paragraph from this section discussing various ideas of how the dinosaurs came to be buried in this pose, on the basis that they were all sand related and that "the Gobi was not a desert back then." While it was not as arid as it is today and sandstorms most likely did not kill and flash-bury any animals, it was a dune field, similar to the Nebraska sand hillstoday . The authors of that study suggest a collapsing sand dune as the most likely explaination, and I don't know of any more recent research that contradicts this. The entire Claws and Teeth section needs an overhaul, and the fighting dinosaurs stuff probably should be placed in a seperate section with some of this information included. Dinoguy2 15:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Terrestrial vertebrates often curl up under dry, or other, conditions after their death. It's entirely plausible that these two died separately, and were brought together by some conditions before they had naturally curled up...they then curled around each other. Likewise the raptor could quite plausibly have died trying to raid the other animal's already dead body. The assumption that there was some magical snapshot of their deadly battle is romantic and fun, but otherwise is wild supposition. You'd need something along the lines of a clear set of toothmarks in a bone of each, perfectly matching the dental pattern of the other. If they'd encountered a fatal situation while actually struggling, the odds are that they could have moved from their "death struggle" pose to SOME degree. Take a collapsing dune, for example. Straightening and pulling away would have been a matter of reflex as the sand hit them. Kaz 03:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fossil fight 

message: Is there a source for this?  As far as I know, only China has yielded non-avian dinosaurs with preserved feathers.--Rob117 04:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Many news articles report on dinosaurs being feathered by inference, not by fossil evidence. There were feathered dinosaurs living in SA, but no fossil feathers have been peserved there. I'll try to clarify this. Dinoguy2 20:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feathered dinosaurs in Argentina? 

message: I would like to see a new page devoted to the Megaraptor, as the two-line cameo appearance is either incorrect or (as I would like to believe) a new theory that deserves to be discussed in greater depth.
:Sorry to dash your hopes, but the fact that Megaraptor is a carnosaur is no theory. Calvo et al 2002 found a complete, articulated forelimb that proved the big claw was from the hand of an allosauroid, not a dromaeosuar. I might make a stub about it for the time being just to avoid further confusion. Once it's done check Megaraptor.Dinoguy2 03:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megaraptor 

message: Even Mr. Srnka has updated his  drawing (compare with the old version currently in the taxobox), so I think its high time a new image for this page is found.Dinoguy2 23:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there something wrong with the current image? ¦ Reisio 00:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly the position of the hands. That artist has since updated the image (see link, fixed it) with correct hand position and feathering more like the typical dromaeosaur feather pattern. I'm not sure if the updated one can be used with the same fair use policy of the original, though.Dinoguy2 00:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need A New Image 

message: "Recently, fossils of dinosaurs related to Velociraptor (coelurosaurs) have been found in China with downy feathers on their bodies, and some even have flight feathers on their arms. It is certain that Velociraptor bore feathers too, although no fossil evidence has yet confirmed this, just as no fossil evidence has confirmed the certainty that sabertooth cats had fur."
The last comment at the end there seems a bit out of NPOV, or at the very least unnecessary. We have a lot of feline descendants or relatives alive today, but no raptors... 
Who says it's certain? Should stick to the fossil evidence here or put forward who argues that the raptors had feathers.
:Despite the technicality of being slightly more primitive than Archaeopteryx (maybe), raptors are still birds and it's rediculous to think they didn't have feathers.Dinoguy2 14:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you don't seem to realize is that all previous renditions of raptors were also based on incomplete evidence.  Now, though, we have a lot more evidence than we did, and what was a lizard is now being corrected into a nice fuzzy birdzard. :p ¦ Reisio 18:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's entirely untrue. Birds are raptors, but that doesn't mean raptors are birds. The claim in the article that the feathered microraptorians were ancestors of mongoliensis and friends is wild speculation at best. The author, making his original research right here in wikipedia, seems to be implying, in multiple places, that being older means necessarily being an ancestor. This is, of course, absolutely fallaceous. Kaz 03:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The image is pretty out of date anyway, do we really need it?The Thagomizer 00:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need it because it's ugly, and 99.9% of us don't carry the antique kind of red/blue 3d glasses around with us. I have a feeling that YOU think it's outdated because it lacks feathers...but, of course, that's your Original Research, again. Kaz 03:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feathers? 

message: I try only to use Anachrome style "compatible images" so that the average reader gets a good image. This image is pretty good
in 3D, but less than great in 2D. These "compatible" images always look better than this one.3dnatureguy 21:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is pretty out of date anyway, do we really need it?The Thagomizer 00:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need it because it's ugly, and 99.9% of us don't carry the antique kind of red/blue 3d glasses around with us. I have a feeling that YOU think it's outdated because it lacks feathers...but, of course, that's your Original Research, again. Kaz 03:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The image posted recently is not a "compatible" 3D image

message: Hi all, there was no picture so I thought I'd do the right thing by add one, but didn't want to get wikipedia into copyright issues so provided the link instead.  Then I came to this page and discovered that there is a discussion what image to use.  Well I'll leave the change for now, but someone more experienced than me may want to delete it.  I have to say that the two pictures that I linked look good and claim to have been done with Scientific merit, so at least check them out.  -- Disco
:The section called "Links to Images"? Should that just be part of an "External Links" section? At any rate, the images on that site show velociraptors with flight feathers - even if they were feathered I find it hard to believe that a non-flying dinosaur (especially one not evolved from a flying dinosaur, that we know of) would have "flight feathers." Ostriches, for example, do not have fully developed flight feathers. - Kevingarcia 07:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's speculaton, but I find it more reasonable that the small species lke Velociraptor would still have flight feathers, while the giants like Achillobator probably had ostrich-like wings. Velociraptor is more similar to the microraptoria than other dromaeosaurs (ostriches are reltively farther removed from their flying ancestors), so it's no too much of a stretch to imagine it as a kakapo-grade flightless bird.Dinoguy2 18:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Link I added 

message: The U.S. Airforce' F-22 Raptor Stealth Fighter Jet first flew in 1997. It's name "raptor" may be inspired by the popular film Jurrasic Park which featured the raptor as a stealthy, dangerous creature. I removed this line from the article. Looks like it's only the authors speculation, and I personally find it more likely that the plane is named for the *flying* birds of prey, like hawks. Feel free to put it back if there's something to back up the asscoiation with Velociraptor.Dinoguy2 14:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, feathered raptors showed up in later Jurassic Park movies (the third one?). Just FYI. -Kevingarcia 07:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Pop Culture 

message: I've added the RP pronunciation however I'm pretty sure that the first vowel is an .  Jimp 06:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: If the "Dinosaurs had not become Extint" what type of "Animals" would we have on Earth today ?
:Dinosaurs. (Is this a trick question? ;) ) Dinoguy2 13:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinction 

message: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060404.wdino0404s/BNStory/Science/home
Is this giant turkey a raptor?--Sonjaaa 12:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The story is referring to Hagryphus, which is an oviraptorosaur. The Singing Badger 13:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giant turkey? 

message: Velociraptor is now the current Dinosaur Collaboration! If you like, please feel free to contribute at the collaboration subpage here. Thank you! Sheep81 10:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration 

message: I've made a story about the fight as if the two creatures weren't killed by a disaster.
A Velociraptor was looking for food. Suddenly, it saw a nest of Protoceratops eggs. But before it could snatch one to a safe distance, a Protoceratops came charging right at it! SLAM! The Protoceratops's bony head struck it squarely in the chest. Now the Protoceratops had the Velociraptor's arm in it's beak, tugging and pulling. The Velociraptor scratched weakly at the Protoceratops's face. It was dying from the head butt the Protoceratops gave on the first blow. It tightened it's hind legs, then slashed upward at the throat of the Protoceratops. In an instant, the desert sand was stained red. The lifeless weight of the Protoceratops came down on the Velociraptor. But the Velociraptor didn't feel it. It had already died.
So, does anyone have comments?211.72.108.3 14:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't find it - do you have a URL for it? Thanks - Ballista 07:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that prompt response. However, I can't play it - I just get a bleep when I click. What software does it require? - Ballista 04:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh dear - sorry but this is proving to be a saga. All I get is a clong when I click the link. It won't let me in (anyway, I'm sure I have QuickTime!) - Ballista 17:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protoceratops vs Velociraptor 

message: Hi - I've a problem trying to edit the leading 'Taxonomy' paragraph of Velociraptor - I don't manage to read it well and therefore can't really see what was intended. Can anyone help? - Ballista 05:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job Dinoguy - I get it now! - Ballista 00:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy paragraph - help 

message: What kind of ankylosaur did the Velociraptor fight in The Truth About Killer Dinosaurs? Ankylosaurus? Sachania?211.72.108.3 02:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We really need someone to watch the special or research that somehow as the back and forth editing is becoming quite annoying. Sheep81 08:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ankylosaur 

message: Is this really an asset to the article, in its current form? - Ballista 04:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation guide 

message: This is why IPA sucks. If I was unfamiliar with the IPA (fortunately I'm not) and went to the IPA chart for English to see how to pronounce , I'd come out saying vellarsirraptor, which is quite wrong. On the other hand, I think it's a bit of overkill to add pronunciations for every dialect, especially for a word where the pronunciation really isn't different from the spelling.
Would it perhaps be better if it was removed? --Ptcamn 02:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA 

message: Furthering another 'sub-project' (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs - Formations), I have just created 'mini-stubs' for various geological formations in Velociraptor, to avoid the loss of the links and to allow wider-radiating research from this article by visitors. Please xpand if able. - Ballista 06:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formations (link restoration but now blue) 

message: Great job - the pictures are looking much better now, thanks to Firsfron's editing and Sheep's JP addition. However, am I alone in not enjoying the sculpture shot? It isn't very like him at all. - Ballista 03:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I kinda like the sculpture shot. It's something unique, that you don't see with most dinosaurs. It's noteworthy alone for the unusual style. As for the JP picture, no offence to Sheep or anyone, but the original picture was so much better. This one's awfully dark, and doesn't show the raptor on the left from a good angle. Also, the exit sign is distracting...--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we are not allowed to use the original picture so it's kind of a moot point. I can try to find a different screenshot if necessary but you'd be surprised how rarely they actually showed the full body of the raptors in that movie. Sheep81 09:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if you can find a place for it. Sheep81 22:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: About the JP images--could someone clarify why the old image is not fair use and the new one is? They both have the same copyright tag.Dinoguy2 20:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the old one was cropped: if it was really from the film, it would be in landscape format, not portrait. Someone cropped it. According to WP's Fair Use policy, you can use an image, but you shouldn't alter it from the original.--Firsfron of Ronchester 20:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, ok. I did think that was a press release photo, not an image from the film, though. I've seen JP about 37,000 times and don't remember that shot being in the movie.Dinoguy2 21:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point. I don't remember that shot, either. If we can somehow prove the image is unaltered from the original, we can use it.--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is definitely not a screenshot. In fact, that very image is on the sidebar of one of the special features on the DVD. If it is a publicity photo then it is very easy to make a claim of fair use... in fact if it was released for publicity then it is pretty much fair use by definition. But you have to prove that it is a publicity photo released for public consumption, and that it is unaltered. Meaning that you have to find the source and cite it. Sheep81 01:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image changes - congrats and query 

message: The opening sentence could link to Late Cretaceous or Cretaceous. Which should it link to. I made this edit that liked to Late Cretaceous, but that got changed back here. What do people think?
:Sorry, I didn't know you had changed that. I put the link as Cretaceous Period because the link for Late Cretaceous is immediately adjacent in the taxobox and again in the Provenance section. That was my reasoning anyway. Change it back if you think it's better that way. Sheep81 01:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's just by itself, then no, "period" is not capitalized. But when it is preceded by Cretaceous, it becomes part of a proper noun and has to be capitalized. If it is not capitalized on other pages, then the other pages are wrong. Look at Madison Avenue, for instance. The word "avenue" would not be capitalized on its own, but when it refers to a specific avenue named after James Madison, then it is. That's not really a Wikipedia convention, that's just English grammar. Sheep81 01:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm not mistaken, Late Cretaceous is also the proper name for the specific epoch we're dealing with here (equivalent to Miocene, etc.). I've seen a few dinosaur pages with things like "late Cretaceous", "Late Cretaceous Period", "Mid Cretaceous" (capital 'M' implies an epoch that doesn't exist!), etc., in various places. So, be on the lookout :) Dinoguy2 02:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not mistaken. However, the way that sentence is currently written "...is a genus of dromaeosaurid theropod dinosaur for which fossils have been found dating from 80 to 75 million years ago in the Late Cretaceous Epoch of the Cretaceous Period." is just painfully cumbersome now in my eyes, and also seriously redundant. If we absolutely have to say "Cretaceous" twice in one sentence, can we at least get rid of "for which fossils have been found dating from" and replace it with "which existed" or "which lived"? I understand and appreciate the precision which we're going for there, but it's just not a good start to the article style-wise, in my opinion. Sheep81 02:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe just say "...is a genus of dromaeosaurid theropod dinosaur which lived towards the end of the Cretaceous Period, 80 to 75 million years ago"? The specific epoch is already listed and linked in the taxobox anyway. Dinoguy2 02:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Late Cretaceous]] or [[Cretaceous]] 

message: Following the edits made to the bits about the fighter jet called a raptor, and that this refers to the word raptor in the sense of a bird-of-prey, rather than a shortened name for this dinosaur, I was wondering what the exact relationship is. I assume they come from the same Latin root, as the meaning would seem to suitably apply to both.
*"This name is derived from the Latin words velox (meaning 'swift') and raptor (meaning 'robber' or 'plunderer') and refers to the animal's cursorial nature and carnivorous diet."
*wiktionary:Raptor
*Raptor
That last link is particularly interesting, having several different uses in popular culture of the word 'raptor' as used in names. It might be a problem deciding whether the bird-of-prey sense or the dinosaur sense inspired them, but can the material on that page be incorporated here as well, or at least linked to? Maybe put Raptor in the "See also" section? Carcharoth 12:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with the word 'raptor' 

message: Scott Hartman has volunteered his skeletal reconstruction for use in the article. In my opinion it is superior to the one we have now. He says the skull is only based on Norell's velociraptorine in minor areas that are crushed in other specimens, and doesn't affect the overall *shape* of the skull, though the overall shape is based on undescribed specimens he is working on (which are definately  V. mongoliensis anyway). If there's no objection I'll put this in place of the current skeletal. Dinoguy2 23:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we should definitely put the image in the article, but don't replace the existing anatomy pic with it. That anatomy pic is the only pic we have that can really go on the main page when it is featured. The writing on this pic could be seen as annoying when it appears on the main page, so I say until Velociraptor has appeared on the main page, do not replace the existing pic. Thanks, Spawn Man 23:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Scott has also agreed to give us a few photos of the fighting dinosaurs and Velociraptor skulls, but he's in Japan right now so it'll be a week or two.Dinoguy2 00:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds great - thanks for that. - Ballista 03:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although they're probably better, I still think we should keep our fighting dino photo over this guy's ones, as it will give us a sense of pride that we don't need to be a hotshot to take a photo of a vital piece of history... That sounded weird so.... Spawn Man 22:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pssh, pride. I took that photo six years ago and it stinks. I'll swallow my pride, I think, if his are better ;) Dinoguy2 22:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New skeletal 

message: At 20:51, 11 July 2006 an anonymous user (12.206.237.180) who just prior had vandalized the page, changed the dates of the Chinese-Canadian team from "1988 and 1990" to "1987 and 1991" without citing a source.  As I do not have access to the 3 referenced items, I am assuming the edit is the result of someone playing.  While the new date range would be technically accurate (if the first one was true), it widens the date range unnecessarily.  I have changed the dates back to their original value.  If someone disputes 1988 and 1990 dates, please advise.  Arx Fortis 03:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandals deserve to be flayed & thrown into boiling vats of magma..... Unless of course they have a pet frog... In which case it is just wrong.... Spawn Man 04:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates of Chinese discovery changed? 

message: Velociraptors being extremely popular is a factor of vandalism, and it being a featured article just increases the odds of it being vandalized. perhaps we should protect it? Also, I've noticed a bunch of vandalisms over the past few weeks... Abby724 04:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we protect the son of a gun & hope for the aliens to land.... Spawn Man 04:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we do not protect the daily featured article Raul654 04:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I say we don't protect the son of a gun & hope for the aliens to land.... Spawn Man 05:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I just reverted the last 30 edits to this article. I realize that's pretty unorthodox, but 1/2 of it was vandalism like this, most of the remaining edits were reverts of said vandalism (but some of it was accidentally left in), and a few edits were well-intentioned mistakes (like removing the word "genera" as a typo). I reverted to the last "clean" version.--Firsfron of Ronchester 13:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do you think we should protect this page? 

message: One of the scariest things the velociraptor did in Jurassic Park was spit on the computer geek before killing him. I assume this is dramatic license on Crichton's part. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the popular culture section?
66.42.111.199 15:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't a velociraptor. Arvindn 15:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a Dilophosaurus; but yes, the fossil record shows no evidence of the ability to spit poison, and this was dramatic license by Crichton.David Fuchs 15:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poison Spitting 

message: Is there a source for the claim in the intro that the Velociraptor is the "most well known among the general public"? Smells like original research to me. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh come on! Don't misuse the term "original research"! If anything, this is probably just a piece of speculation with no research or sources to back it up. Just flag it for removable as an unsourced statement. If anything, it would fall under Verifiability, as verifying this sort of statement is very difficult. It is really something that would appear in an opinion piece. Carcharoth 22:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well actually no it doesn't... I smells more like coffee at 5 am, but anyway, it would be far more close to being weasel words than original research... Read the following paragraph which demonstrates my research which I conducted on the general public last spring... Spawn Man 22:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was obvious that Velociraptor is well-known to the general public. Jerkov 11:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's obviously well-known, but to state it's the "most" well-known implies that some kind of study has been done to determine this. I doubt it even is the most well known. Tyrannosaurus probably gets that honor, but it's all speculation anyway.Dinoguy2 20:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for most well know 

message: I've found at least one bit of vandalism that escaped everyone's notice. See this edit that remained uncorrected for over 6 hours. When reverted an obvious bit of vandalism, do check that you don't miss any other bits of vandalism. The whole article should be checked over as well, once it is off the main page. Carcharoth 22:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! I apologise unreservedly. I assumed because Chased by Dinosaurs was a red-link, that this was a vandal trying to be funny. It seems that Velociraptor didn't appear in Walking with Dinosaurs, but appeared in a spin-off series called Chased by Dinosaurs, so I restored this and made it a blue-link to the relevant section of "Walking with Dinosaurs". Sorry about all that. Carcharoth 22:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh sake! You just wasted all those pixels with your nonsense.... ;) Spawn Man 00:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. Thousands of people read it and learn from my mistakes. Don't they? ... Please tell me they do! :-/ Carcharoth 02:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watch for vandalism 

message: The Rice university comment is not part of popular culture, but an inside joke at a single university.  It seems like a passing fad and not worthy of mention in this article. A better spot would be in the article about the university's paper.  If nobody objects, I'll give it a day or two and remove it. Epachamo 15:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beat you to it! : ) Thanks for pointing that out. Sheep81 01:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rice University 

message: These have been in the article for some time, recently removed by John Conway, and then reverted by Dragon Helm. I think there should be some better way to handle this. It is a little weasly that we need to use qualifying statements with reconstructions here, while we don't use them anywhere else. Why not put a caption on Image:T. rex head rhs.JPG , which says "Reconstruction of Tyrannosaurus showing speculative scaley hide and coloration"? The scales from the head of T. rex, if it had scales on its head, are just as speculative and just as likely as the feathers of Velociraptor reconstructions here. I think the default assumption for dino reconstructions is that any exterior appearance is speculative unless otherwise noted. Seems unfair to make an exception for Velociraptor. I'm reminded of the argument on Dinosaur over qualifying statements to placate creationists. The same qualifiers about geological time and evolution would need to be placed on every single dinosaur article. Unless there's a modern source which argues with the idea that Velociraptor had feathers (which I sincerely doubt exists in any scientific context), such qualifiers might be considered weasel language as JC said in his edit summary.Dinoguy2 20:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to be an eminently well-reasoned argument. Can you propose a 'final' solution for the Velociraptor caption, that might stand the test of (foreseeable) time? - Ballista 06:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think one sort of all-inclusive discussion of the possibility of feathers in the text should do the trick. Maybe something from the general feathers section on Dromaeosauridae could be copied/modified here?Dinoguy2 16:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualifying statements about feathers 

message: I thought we weren't going to get really detailed in our taxoboxes? I mean it's one thing, in my opinion, for Centrosaurinae and Lambeosaurinae to be in a taxobox, those are major subgroupings containing many species. But Velociraptorinae? It's been tossed around over the years, sure, but it's not really on the same level as Centro/Chasmo or Hadro/Lambeo, you know? It might even be identical in content with Velociraptor. Let me know if the mood has changed and we are now going to list every single subdivision in the taxobox. Sheep81 21:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that, since velociraptorinae is probably monotypic, it should be listed here. Other taxa which are contained in monotypic groups have those groups listed in their taxobox (for example, Archaeopteryx]] lists Archaeopterygidae and authority on its taxobox). While I agree that taxoboxes should not list every little group, I do think every little group should be listed somewhere at least, and as a monotypic taxa this is the only logical place for Velociraptorinae. Put another way, I think the bold, unlinked, and cited portion of the taxobox should include all the taxa under discussion on this particular page--that is, subfamily Velociraptorinae, genus Velociraptor, and species V. mongoliensis.Dinoguy2 23:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, if you say so! Sheep81 02:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subfamily in taxobox? 

message: The skeleton in the image that's just been added (the one with Buitreraptor) doesn't look like Velociraptor to me... My uess is it's either Deinonychus, or possibly a speculative reconstruction of Unenlagia (contemporary with Buitreraptor). Any ideas?Dinoguy2 14:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buitreraptor image? 

message: Is this really an accurate size comparison?  I live in an area with wild turkey, and they're about half the height listed for the V. mongoliensis, and not even close for mass.  Admittedly, they're Florida wild turkey, which are slightly smaller than Eastern wild turkey, but even they only grow to roughly four feet tall, two-thirds the size of a Velociraptor.  The mass wouldn't be that similar either, as 45 pounds is heavier than any turkey I've run across. (edit: I apparently forgot to sign this)The Dark 18:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this was meant to give the reader more of a general idea of size than represent a strict comparison. However, maybe changing it to "large turkey" would be better, unless there's another commonly-known bird that's around the same size as Velociraptor.Dinoguy2 20:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the great bustard weights about the same of a velociraptor, but I'm afraid it's not so well known as to give a notion of the size or weight of the animal... perhaps, trying something outside the bird lineage for comparison, such as an ocelot, we have a comparison that encompasses both lenght and weight approximately? With extant birds that would be unlikely, I think, but I do not really know many bird species. --Extremophile 20:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem with extant birds is that any bird which weighs 45 lbs but stands only a few ft high would be flightless, and most flightless birds are not well known (actually, the dodo is very close in size and weight...). The best bet among living birds would be a mid-sized emperor penguin. Using ocelot actually might be the better option, since it's more "long" than "tall", like Velociraptor and unlike emperor penguins.Dinoguy2 20:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Putting in my pennyworth, I like 'dodo-sized'. - Ballista 03:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there enough name recognition? Do most people even know what a dodo is? Also, it may be hazardous to compare one extinct flightless feathered animal with another flightless feathered animal; people may become confused, and believe a relationship between the two is implied. Better, in my opinion, to leave the turkey reference. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the dodo is fairly well-known, although I agree that it may not be the best idea to compare one extinct flightless feather animal to another extinct flightless feathered animal, even if it is only on size.  The closest for mass and height seems to be, as Dinoguy2 said, the emperor penguin, but it's a little shorter and heavier.  I'll probably dig around a little this weekend and try to find a good comparison animal for size and build - 6 feet total height/length, 45 pounds weight.The Dark 18:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor correction--the Emperor Penguin is quite a bit taller than Velociraptor, because of its erect posture. The wiki article lists the penguin at 1.27-1.6 meters tall and 34 kg in mass, while Velociraptor was 0.6 - ~1.5 (if it were to rear up) m tall and only 20 kg.Dinoguy2 19:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey-sized? 

message: Not wishing to antagonise anyone but I have removed the bracketed clause: "(though the fossil excavated was that of a "Utahraptor")", since the film was fiction and Utahraptor not yet described (as far as I know). - Ballista 16:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed clause 

message: A study was done on TV this summer. (The discovery channel?) They created a mechanical raptor claw with pistons, springs to emulate a real raptor leg. They they used it on a side of beef I beleive. The end result was a small hole in the beef, not a large gash. The slashing, and diembolment theory is presented in this article, but the discovery channel documentary has in the very least thrown doubt onto this theory.  Sadly I don't remember the name of the show, or even the correct channel for that point. If anyone else knows about the show I'm talking about, an alteration to the purpose of the claw would be greatly appreciated.
:Dont suppose you actually read the whole article did you?Sheep81 08:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raptor Claw 

message: This article states that velociraptor has the most fossils of any Dromaeosaurid. But see Deinonychus. Totnesmartin 02:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The most fossils 

message: I know some people had objected to replacing the current skeletal diagram (which is ok, but has some innacuracies) with this one. I think the problem was the inclusion of text. Any thoughts now that the article is featured?Dinoguy2 03:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problems whatsoever. :o) Could the same image, for which we should be very grateful, possibly be put on WikiCommons?--MWAK 14:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hartman skeletal 

message: The resonating chamber, as show in JP3, is not an actual velociraptor resonating chamber. In fact, no one knows what it actually looked like or even where it was located. The resonating chamber from JP3 was really a dogs resonating chamber. Based on the fossil records it is assumed that the resonating chamber was in the head of the Raptor, but it could very well have been in the windpipe of the Raptor like the vocal cords are for us humans. Since no one knows where or how the chamber looked, or even how the ancient Raptors sounded, it is our best guess that they made hissing, squaking, and roaring noises that made up a sord of language. 
The idea of the different noises came from modern animals that the Raptors may have become, if you believe that they became birds.
 
A Hawks squak and have been known to make hissing noises, and some hawks have been even known to make a sort of barking sound. Dinosour experts have taken all three of the noises and tried to find a resonating chamber that could produce all three sounds by adjusting the amound of air and the air pressure that moved through it. The closest they came was a dogs resonating chamber which was capable of creating the barking and squaking.
Again I state that we have no idea what the resonating chamber looked like or where it was located and we fly blind when we try to find out how the Raptors sounded like. All in all, the best guess is that a dog's resonating chamber was very similar to that of a velociraptor's resonating chamber.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.230.80.194 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but this is unsubstantiated nonsense. "We" don't think they made the sounds you described, they were invented for a movie by Hollywood sound engineers, just like their color, etc. The idea that they had a language is complete invention of the movies, nothing to do with reality. Dogs do not have resonating chambers, they bark using vocal chords. Velociraptor did not have resonating chambers either, these are found only in some duck-billed dinosaurs and possibly sauropods. The whole concept as seen in JP3 is wrong. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Resonating Chamber 

message: Added to the article and reverted- While there is, as yet, no fossil evidence to confirm that Velociraptor had feathers, there is little reason to suspect it of being an exception, apart from avoiding scientific dogma, as some claim. I just want to share how surreal it is as somebody who grew up reading Bakker and Paul to find the concept of feathered dinosaurs being called "dogma" ;) Dinoguy2 06:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. I reverted because it was a rather strange comment to stick in Velociraptor, of all places. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not convinced. To my knowledge, except for the Archaeopterix, all fossils with imprints of feathers have been found in the same area in northern China. There is a lively industry of fossil forging in that area: An interesting specimen will sell for perhaps 20 times the average annual income of the area. At this time, feathered fossils are 'hot', because they support a theory that is very much in vogue at the moment (dinosaurs being warm blooded and bird-like). A number of years ago, before the first chinese feathered fossils started pouring in, I saw documentary in which a creationist attempted to discredit the Archaeopterix fossil by forging one. He added feather imprints to an unremarkable fossil of a lizard, that looked remarkably like the ones in the genuine fossil. Though he obviously did not convince me that the German Archaeopterix fossils were fake, he did demonstrate that feather imprints can easily be faked by a skilled artist. Not very long after that documentary was made, feathered fossils started appearing from northern China... Mzzl 05:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And the China fossils typically show no feather imprints...--MWAK (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dogma comment 

message: I'm curious as to the arm structure of Velociraptor (and other maniraptorans) with semi-lunate carpal, the lack of pronation of the wrist and limited range of movement.  I find it hard to see what advantages this would confer in terms of grabbing or holding prey.  Could the limited range of arm movement imply secondary flightlessness in dromaeosaurids such as Velociraptor? (One of the images of Velociraptor, with the stubby wing-like appendages, certainly seems to suggest so).  I've seen the mention of secondary flightlessness in this article, but without connection to the arm. 209.244.31.53 03:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul of course uses this as an argument. Most paleontologists believe in the predatory function of these adaptations. The "wing"folding mechanism would of course in any case be handy to protect the feathers and the lack of pronation seems to be very old. All this has little to do with Velociraptor per se though.--MWAK 13:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arm structure 

message: I thought "Raptor" meant 'Bird of Prey', or is the meaning different in Latin? CJDickinson-Leeds, 18:40, 26/02/07—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.15.206 (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in Latin it simply means "robber". No special association with birds was present.--MWAK 07:23, 27 February 2007
(UTC)
Well, the dinosaur raptors are Dromeosaurs, meaning "robber" and the bird raptors are the birds of prey, but they have a different meaning. It's something like "hunter" or something like that. Paleo Kid (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raptor 

message: I have a personal record of other species, V. montanus and V. utahsiensis. Can anyone else verify these? Ninjatacoshell 18:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, neither of those are published, and I can't find them on Google, so they shouldn't be in the article. J. Spencer 22:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They sound oddly familiar, and Velociraptor is an Asian genus, so they don't make much sense, which leads me to guess they may be "fanwanked" binomials for the creatures Grant was digging up in Jurassic Park... Dinoguy2 02:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As J states, no Google hits for "V. utahsiensis" (bad spelling?) or "Velociraptor utahensis" (more likely spelling). Without a reliable source (like a paper or mention in a reliable source), this cannot be added to the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "V. utahsiensis" sounds oddly similar to Utahraptor and "V. montanus" could be close to being Deinonychus.  As mentioned above by Dinoguy2, those scientific names could have been "fudged" into fitting into Jurassic Park and Velociraptor was only found in Mongolia (nowhere near the U.S.).  I thought I would just say what I was thinking.  --Silverstag89 01:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More species? 

message: A disputed line has been added and reverted twice now to the pop culture section.
:" (Ironically, at the time of the film's release, a new raptor had been discovered, Utahraptor, which was the size of the film's largest velociraptor, the "Big Female".)"
First of all, as far as I know even the smallest Utahraptor are at the very least 15ft in length. I don't have a cite for the length of the raptors in the movie, but I seriously doubt they were that big, and I usually hear a length of about 20+ ft for Utahraptor (and I understand new specimens may put this upwards of 30), so suggesting the JP raptors were "Utahraptor size" is simply false. Second, and I've seen the movie more times than I care to count, but all the raptors looked equal in size to me. I know there was a "big female" line from Muldoon, but was one seriously larger when the raptors actually appeared? Third, ironic doesn't mean that unless you're alanis Morrisett... ;) and fourth, I don't see any relevence here. This is an article about Velociraptor, not Utahraptor or Jurassic Park. Dinoguy2 12:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on all counts. Not really relevant here, for the reasons you've mentioned. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can remove it if you wish as per that it's not strictly related to the article, but the information itself is quiet accurate. Robert Bakker talks about this in his novel Raptor Red. Jus' so you knows. David Füchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 15:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can cite his specific claims, and address how they relate to more modern science (Raptor Red is over a decade old isn't it?), it would certainly be welcome in Utahraptor. Bakker is, unfortunately, pretty infamous for his hyperbole and exaggerated claims in popular works, so this material should be treated carefully. Dinoguy2 03:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utahraptor and Jurassic Park 

message: The word 'raptor' refers also to a bird of prey.  The Toronto Raptors are named after birds of prey, not dinosaurs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.238.152 (talk)  
:Why do they have dromaeosaurids on their jerseys and a dromaeosaurid mascot, then? J. Spencer 05:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true, 70. Haven't you seen the team's logo? That's clearly not a bird of prey: it lacks feathers and has teeth. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm I wonder if they will rethink that no-feather logo. Rekija 06:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raptors 

message: This page is biased. It says nothing about Creationism Since Wikipedia is not supposed to be biased, we need a balance between Evolution and Creationism. I personally don't tink dinosaurs have feathers, and am loath to beleive an evolutionist claim, but we still should keep that in here.
:What would you have the article include? Creationism attaches the creation of all life to a higher power. If you're going to mention it in this article, you should logically visit every article on a living thing and put something into all of them. Additionally, it's inaccurate to say that a balance is needed between Evolutionism and Creationism, since that incorrectly suggests that they are the two viewpoints opposing each other here. In reality, it's more like Creationism and Science.--72.130.143.25 02:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a joke the bible doesn't even mention dinosaurs! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Regardless of whether you believe in evolution or creationism, there is fossil evidence that certain dinosaurs had feathers. 91.109.171.190 (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Right. From a creationist's viewpoint, logically, you should be arguing that Velociraptor is not a dinosaur at all but a bird. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The Behemoth of Job. Take a picture of an animal with a tail as large and wide as a cedar tree that lives today and tell me that God's repsonse to Job didn't talk about a dinosaur. Colonel Marksman (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't talk about a dinosaur.  It says that the tail sways like a cedar.  Scripture never says its as large as one. (yes, I realize the comment is several months old)Farsight001 (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I'm having trouble finding the size estimates in the linked citation.  In Greg Paul's Predatory Dinosaurs of the World (p. 369-370), he estimates 2.07 m long, 0.5 m at the hips, and 15 kg for Fighting GI100/25. J. Spencer 15:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Norell (1999) provides detailed length data for several specimens (though not 100/25, unless the number is different when using the IGN label rather than GI?). Could we add these up and check to see if it matches the various cited sizes? Dinoguy2 00:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh.  Why wasn't Norell (1999) cited then, instead of Norell and Mackovicky (1999)? J. Spencer 02:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Norell & Mackoviky 199 is the one I meant. I believe if you add up the skull and vert lengths listed in the various tables, the length ends up at 1.8m for the largest specimen, but I'll double check this (though, would that be original research? I'd lean toward no, since it's just simple math, like our metric to US unit conversions). Dinoguy2 06:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, now that I check the vert length table, there are no complete specimens to add up, and I reckon it would be OR to extropolate up from the necessary bones in less complete specimens. So maybe going with Paul 1988 for stats would be best, unless a more modern source gives a concrete total length estimate for any specimens... Dinoguy2 06:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can use PDotW as a placeholder for the time being; it's not particularly different from what's up there anyway. J. Spencer 00:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  size estimates 

message: I've took this photo of a replica of a velociraptor's skeleton, do you think that it would be useful on this article? If so, feel free to use it at will, I'll be happy to give all the details needed :) 
http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/8922/dinossauroscantanhede3nno5.jpg
Ihatemornings 16:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  replica of a velociraptor's skeleton 

message: Velociraptor was just a scary turkey, at The Guardian online... make of it what you will. Enjoy. Seegoon (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surely this is helpful 

message: "Velociraptor, like other dromaeosaurids, had a large manus ('hand') with three strongly-curved claws, which were similar in construction and flexibility to the wing bones of modern birds." -- This seems an odd way to phrase this. Birds don't really have much of a "hand" to speak of, certainly IMHO not to compare with that of dromaeosaurines and velociraptorines. The "arms" are similar across the board. The "hands", not so much. Yes? No? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say they're similar in flexibility, though. Dromies could do a rudimentary hooking/'grasping' motion with the fingers that I don't think most modern birds aside from hoatzin are capable of. Simplest solution: change "modern birds" to "primitive birds". Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manus / hand / arm / wing / birds 

message: can i confirm that it is not known whether velociraptors had feathers or scales (I say scales in the sense that dinosaurs in JP had scales, I don't know if there is another term for dinosaur scales)? I am still not sure on the feather situation, as a kid feathered dinosaurs were unheard of except winged ones can someone explain properly, with some external links maybe? cheers 86.151.175.184 (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the section of the article titled "Feathers," which discusses the recent discovery that Velociraptor had feather anchor points o its forelimbs. This means that not only did it have feathers, it had wings. One of the external sources cited is a news article available online, called "Velociraptor Had Feathers". Discoveries made since 1999 (see the article Feathered dinosaurs) show that representatives of every Maniraptoran group had feathers, and there's no reason to think other members found without skin impression evidence lacked them. An example of this kind of thinking: We don't have direct evidence that Smilodon had fur, but because other cats do, we think it probably did. There's no reason to think Smilodon lost its fur and had scales instead. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  feathers/scales 

message: According to Olshevsky's Dinosaur Genera List, "Ichabodcraniosaurus" *is* a nomen nudum, although no synonymy is suggested. Should it be mentioned in the article? Mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Olshevsky is dead wrong here, as has been pointed out numerous times on the DML and elsewhere--Ichabodcraniosaurus was clearly not intended as a new taxon name and can't be a nomen nudum, just as Sue can't be a nomen nudum synonymous with Tyrannosaurus and Elvisaurus can't be one for Cryolophosaurus. Ovoraptor, now that's a nomen nudum. But we're using him as the source, so... *shrug*. Anyway, I added a mention in the History section. will add the cite for coining the nickname shortly. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ichabodcraniosaurus"