Talk:Velociraptor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleVelociraptor is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 12, 2006.
June 29, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Natural sciences.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

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

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 (talkcontribs) 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

Raptor[edit]

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[edit]

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)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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[edit]

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}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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[edit]

"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)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2018[edit]

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)