Talk:Velociraptor

Template:WP1.0 Archives:

Archive 1 (up to October 2006):

The most fossils

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

Hartman skeletal

File:Velociraptor skeletal by Scott Hartman.jpg

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)

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)

Dogma comment

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)

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)

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:[1] 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)

No-one needed fossil feathers from china. The relation between dinosaurs and birds is apparent in every theropod. Feather quills found on a velciraptor skeleton seal the argument over whether these sorts of creatures had feathers. T.Neo 15:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Arm structure

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)

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)

Raptor

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).

Yes, in Latin it simply means "robber". No special association with birds was present.--MWAK 07:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

More species?

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Utahraptor and Jurassic Park

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)

I agree on all counts. Not really relevant here, for the reasons you've mentioned. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

If a good citation can be found, I think it's quite relevant, since so many people's knowledge of dinosaurs is so influenced by Jurassic Park. There should be a brief mention in "In Popular Culture" saying that though the velociraptors in Jurassic Park are larger than real velociraptors, a related species was found around the time of the movie's release that more closely matches the movie's description; and have a link to Utahraptor or something. Professor Chaos 05:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

the deal???

whats the deal with every dinosaur suddenly being shown with feathers?? up until about 3 years ago i had heard almost nothing about feathered dinosaurs except about small flying ones, but now everybodies jumped on the bandwagon and dressin em all up in feathers. so can someone please tell me and prove that nearly all, or at least A LOT (in most cases it seems that), dinos had feathers?!??!@!//|#*%"$%:?!!£

Not most dinosaurs, just most coelurosaurian theropods. Check out phylogenetic bracketing. Sheep81 22:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Most people didn't know Brontosaurus had been "re-named" until decades after the fact. These things take time to sink in ;) Dinoguy2 13:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't even think most people know that now! Sheep81 16:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fossilized skin imprints of the Tyrannosaurs unmistakably show scales. Could its line have lost its feathers and regained scales? To my knowledge, apart from the Archaeopterix, the only place in the world where any indication for feathered dinosaurs has been found is this one area in China, a country which until not so very long ago produced stuffed mermaids and unicorns, and today produces many forged or artificially enhanced fossils. Not very surprising since an ordinary fossil can be worth the local equivalent of a new car, but a 'special' one, such as a missing link or a fossil with feather imprints, is worth the local equivalent of a lottery jackpot. --Mzzl 06:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A lot of fakes do exist, but are usually weeded out (the one notable exception being Archaeoraptor, but even that was weeded out when it was actually studied by scientists). The fakes tend to be obvious--sculpted parts based on modern bird wings grafted onto real fossils so that the hands don't match, or the feet of a lizard combined with the body of a dromaeosaur. The actual feather impressions have never been faked, only combined with non-feathered animals in a pretty obvious way. Also, not all the fossils have been given to scientists by local farmers. Now that the beds are famous, a lot of scientists (Western and Chinese) are digging there themselves and finding the same stuff. Not to mention feather traces other than impressions from elsewhere (such as Shuvuuia and Velociraptor, from Mongolia.

In a documentary about the intelligent design movement, an artist demonstrated how simple it was to add convincing feather imprints to a fossil lizard in limestone, in an attempt to discredit Archaeopterix. While he obviously didn't convince me (even without the feather imprints, the Archaeopterix would have been convincing enough), a few months after that documentary aired, suddenly Therapod fossils with feather imprints and other 'missing links' started appearing from northern China and Mongolia, just as archaeolists were looking for evidence for the theory that Therapods were birds. It just doesn't fit the fact that far younger fossils have shown Therapods to have had scales.--Mzzl (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's possible to re-evolve scales after descending from feathered ancestors. I personally suspect it's not, and that basal coelurosaur/carnosaur/tyrannosaur relationships are more complicated than we think. Look at all the similarities between the basal carnosaur Monolophosaurus and the basal tyrannosaur Guanlong, or the ever-shifting phylo positions of compsognathids. It could be that Dilong is not a T. rex ancestor but something a bit more advanced. Dinoguy2 09:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is that maybe Velociraptor as a species was VERY diverse, with many races/breeds. as in dogs or humans.

Perhaps some Velociraptor races/breeds were fully covered in feathers, others partially covered, others none at all. ANd don't even get me started on the variety of colors that they could have come in. --69.14.74.155 16:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You realize there weren't any humans around in the Cretaceous to breed the Velociraptor version of the sphinx cat, right? Think about how often total loss of hair or feathers happens in modern animals that aren't extremely large, aquatic, burrowing, or artificially-selected, and then think again about how likely you think it was that any Velociraptor species was totally lacking in feathers. Kotengu 小天狗 19:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What you are failing to grasp is that in every species there are RACES. in other words, not every single member of the same species will be of the same colour or have the exact same minor physical features... it has been like that forever.. Look at humand. a black man looks nothing like a white one.. not just in color but in ohysical appearance. --69.14.74.155 05:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Lack of feathers is a major, not minor, physical difference. It would be like one "race" (a concept that was scientifically disproven over half a century ago, in the sense you're using it) of humans having fins. Anyway, even if it's possible, there's no reason whatever to think it happened. It's possible some Velociraptor subspecies existed that had tiger stripes, while others had polka dots. Unless there's some kind of actual evidence, such pointless speculation has no place in an encyclopedia article. Especially when all modern scientists, including the ones who think birds are not dinosaur relatives, support the idea that Velociraptor and all dromaeosaurs had feathers. Dinoguy2 05:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You prefer this instead?_Dragon Helm 05:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Look at humand. a black man looks nothing like a white one.. not just in color but in ohysical appearance" what a load of racist crap. An albino black person could easily thought to be a white european. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the guy you're replying to is an idiot, but I have to point out that what you're saying is completely false. Take a look at some images of albino people of Sub-Saharan descent and you'll see they still look "black" in their facial features. There's nothing racist to point that out - if acknowleding differences in skin color isn't racist, why would doing the same for differences in facial features be? --81.158.148.64 (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Also note, the Sphinx cat is not truly hairless, it has very, very short hair. Yes, not having feathers would be a major difference. And yes, there's probably a lot of people who still think about Brontosaurus...even after it was brought up in the movie Jurassic Park (film) by Lex (though IIRC she corrected her brother by identifying the dinosaur in question as a Brachiosaurus). VigilancePrime 06:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Raptors

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)

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)

Hmmm I wonder if they will rethink that no-feather logo. Rekija 06:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Bias

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)

That's a joke the bible doesn't even mention dinosaurs! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Birds are dinosaurs. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

gustav, how would a book that was written at least 1600 years ago mention a type of creature which was unknown until the 1840s? even if the Bible talked about dinosaurs, you wouldn't know it from the text, since the word "dinosaur" was coined in 1842. a word like "dragon" or "behemoth" or "leviathan" would be used (the last two are used in the Book of Job.) beyond that, the original poster never stated anything about the Bible. he simply said that there should be information from both points of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.34.92 (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

size estimates

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)

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)

Huh. Why wasn't Norell (1999) cited then, instead of Norell and Mackovicky (1999)? J. Spencer 02:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

replica of a velociraptor's skeleton

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)

Surely this is helpful

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)

Manus / hand / arm / wing / birds

"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)

• Take a look, birds have similar hands[2] Funkynusayri (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

feathers/scales

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)

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)

"Ichabodcraniosaurus"

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)

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)

popular culture

This is an outrage! "In popular culture" doesn't contain a single reference to XKCD. I mean, Randall Munroe is obsessed with velociraptors. He's even got a t-shirt for sale at the store. I've seen people wear it. Jurassic Park is well and good, but it's not very recent. -) Fry-kun (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems to have a lot more to do with XKCD than it does with Velociraptor, making it [Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Connective trivia|Connective Trivia of the Second Kind]. Just because multiple topics are involved in a trivia reference (Randall Munroe, XKCD, Velociraptor) does not mean the item is important to all or any of them.

I'm a big XKCD fan myself, and I remember a few comics involving Velociraptor, but it's even less notable that Dinosaur Comics. That is, not very. You're better off pushing for a discussion of Get Fuzzy in Cat ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Feathers!

I read that it says it had feathers but as I believe it had none could someone better clarify this for me?

Joey3r (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It had feathers. The proof was found last year in the form of wing-feather anchor points found on an arm bone. This is talked about in the article. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I read this but until this dinosaur can be touched and the real skin of the amazing beast can be felt I remain undecided, because how can we know for fact it had feathers if it's 75 -72 million years old, other rocks may have rubbed against it over time or in fossilization and caused it to look like it had feathers.

Joey3r (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That's never going to happen, so you'll be undecided forever. I'll stick with what literally every piece of scientific evidence tells me. ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I will be undecided forever then it is better than assuming. Joey3r (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really assuming... you're saying rocks rubbed up against a bone in such a way as to carve exact replica of feather quill knobs into the bone. That would take a one in a trillion miracle to happen. You might as well say the whole skeleton was randomly carved by rocks rubbing together and Velociraptor never even existed. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I see where your coming from even though anything is possible I don't think the hole skeleton was randomly carved but the feathers may have been but being on more than one it more than likely had feathers but we are all entitled to an opinion, sorry for any trouble. Joey3r (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

We are all entitled to an opinion on abstract things. Not concrete ones. If my opinion is that lions eat only watermelon, well, that's my opinion, and it's flat-out wrong, period. ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 06:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

But it is not concrete if it has been dead for 80 million years. Joey3r (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Just because it happened a long time ago doesn't mean hard evidence is more open to opinion than modern evidence. If I find a fossil sea shell, I know it probably housed a mollusk at some point in time, because modern ones do and there's no reason to think prehistoric ones were any different. If I find fossil quill knobs, I know they probably supported feathers for the same reason. If someone's opinion is that maybe in the Cambrian period, seashells housed cats instead of mollusks, well that's their opinion, but it's not based on any facts.

Another thing to remember--on Wikipedia, even if you did have a valid opinion on this, unless you publish it in a scientific paper, we can't change the article. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

But I never said to change it I just asked for a better explanation. Joey3r (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it at all possible that the so-called "quill knobs" might be anchor points for collagen frills? I read some articles regarding the Sinosauropteryx and the Psittacosaurus, which were believed to have protofeathers based on similar evidence to the Raptors, but now it's beginning to look like they may have actually had collegen frills instead. The Bald Truth About Dinposaurs Bird-dinosaur link questioned Yeah, I know that the general consensus amongst scientists is currently that raptors had feathers, but is it possible we could mention the possibility that it may have been collagen frills? This is going to sound kind of shallow, but I really hate the way feathered raptors look. They don't look anything like the ones I grew up seeing in movies and with toys, and it just depresses me to see one of my favorite kinds of dinos looking like a giant parakeet. The possibility that the paleontologists mistook collagen frill roots for quill nubs is pretty much all I have left to hold on to. (Timstuff (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

Nope. The 'collagen frills' ideas (believed by about 3 people in the world, by the way, with very good press agents) suggests they're just that, frills on the dermis reinforced with collagen. Collagen is soft tissue of the skin only and never involved the bone. It's also more of a web of fibers, so there are no 'points' to anchor, as in the quill of a feather. And we shouldn't mention the frill hypothesis here, because it doesn't apply to maniraptorans. The people who belive birds did not evolve from dinosaurs believe that raptors are not dinosaurs at all, but true birds with feathers.

Sorry if you're disappointed with the modern view. I'm sure there were people who grew up in the 50s disappointed when it turned out T. rex had a horizontal posture instead of vertical Godzilla pose. But you're gonna have to get with the times--I literally read a box of macaroni and cheese yesterday that talked about the fact raptors had feathers. Macaroni and cheese! Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK... question: How do we know that these animals had feathers? Has anyone SEEN them? Or are they the fabrications of art developed by scientists? For all we know, their skin could be white, black, or yellow, with stripes of all the colors. They might have even had fur in some places. You can't look at bones and decide for yourself with speculation that they must have had feathers simply because you believe them to be the intermediate species between birds and mammals.

Wikipedia requires PROVEN, VERIFIED FACTS ONLY (that's different from quoting a scientist and saying that is true when the scientist could be wrong). Of course, that means Evolution should be left out because it isn't a verified, proven thing that can be observed or studied, but nobody's following that knowledge. Colonel Marksman (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This is what the scientists say in peer reviewed science journals. If you want to have this changed, publish a paper on it, then we can cite it here. Nobody has published any paper disputing the fact they had feathers. Ever. Maybe you can be the first. Until then, it stays. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That's perfectly acceptable to post the fact that they discussed it; its completely wrong to post that is IS a fact rather than a discussion scientists had with their own speculation. You quote it, "So-and-so believes that this species had feathers based on..." as opposed to: "this species had feathers."

But I looked through the article, and the word "may", and "could" show up. What they found were six evenly separated "quill knobs", or what they think are quill knobs. If a feather impression or a feather isn't attached, you can't say for sure. The article being used as a source is not a hard-fact article. As of yet, there has been no evidence that this dinosaur had scales, feathers, or skin. For now, we can only guess. Colonel Marksman (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If that's the standard, we need to qualify every single statement in the article. Every on.e Every sentence will read like "so and so believes Velociraptor to have had feet, based on the presence of pedal phalanges and metatarsal bones similar to those that form the feet of modern animals. According to these authors, Velociraptor used these feet to walk." Do you see how pointless this is? Quill knobs mean feathers the same way caudal vertebrae mean a tail. Get over it already. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's funny how people don't comment on the Edmontosaurus article, regarding the statment that it has scales, (which are clearly visable in the fossils)......but get in an uproar at the idea of kool raptors having feathers, (which are also clear in fossils of its relatives), [3], [4].... sigh 00:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot's gone on since I've been gone, but how can we tell if the scientists didn't use a computer and put the markings there, technology has advanced so much even a six year old could add it to the picture. Joey3r (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point--in fact, maybe all fossils are hoaxes, made out of plaster or carved out of stone by evil scientists. Is there really any proof dinosaurs existed? Until you find one personally, Joey, to confirm it, we should probably delete all the dinosaur articles. (That was sarcasm in case you didn't pick up on it). Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I did catch on, I'm not an idiot ya know, but has anyone actually been there when they scanned them and watched them scan them, is there any proof that they didn't do it? Film, photographs, etc. Joey3r (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2009 (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)

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)