Active discussions
Velociraptor 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.
This 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)
This 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 (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)

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2018Edit

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

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

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

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

More evidence of raptor pack hunting?Edit this article seems to indicate something like it--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2020Edit

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

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

Jurassic Park velociraptorsEdit

The jurassic park velociraptors are based off of deinonychus, AKA Velociraptor antirrhopus. Velociraptor (Deinonychus) in the movie is named correctly but is commonly confused with Velociraptor mongoliensis. Black, Riley. "You say "Velociraptor," I say "Deinonychus"". Smithsonian. Retrieved 11 February 2020.

That is already mentioned in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand that, but I think the page should have a section about the differences between velociraptor mongoliensis and velociraptor antirrhopus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeatsByDrDre (talkcontribs) 15:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

That is literally covered in the article already. "They portrayed the animals with the size, proportions, and snout shape of Deinonychus rather than Velociraptor." Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
In the wider sense, we could have more about diagnostic features of Velociraptor and how it differs from other dromaeosaurs in general. But there is no reason to focus specifically on its differences with Deinonychus just because of a movie. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Fair point, many of our older FAs could use some discussion of diagnostic features... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:53, 12 February 2020

I think the article should at least mention the existence of Velociraptor Antirrhopus (Using the name Velociraptor Antirrhopus instead of deinonychus). I also think that when talking about the jurassic park velociraptor inaccuracies we should mention that it is accurate in size to antirrhopus, not mongoliensis, which this article is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeatsByDrDre (talkcontribs) 17:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2020Edit

Hi, could you remove this sentence

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

and replace it with this one?

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

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

  Done Dylsss (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Velociraptor" page.