Talk:Bird/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Things in the taxonomy box that I find questionable

The present set of things listed in the taxonomy portion of the infobox is:

Animalia

Chordata

Sauropsida

Avemetatarsalia

Ornithurae

Aves

First of all, let's go over what the purpose of taxonomy actually is, which is that it is used to convey information about the relationships between taxa. The infobox is there to link people quickly and easily to articles that describe the subject's relationship to other taxa.

I find Avemetatarsalia to be a weak choice, under this rationale. It is very "close" on most trees to the clade Ornithodira (below it), and the clade Archosauria (above it). The only taxon which fits in the "gap" between Ornithodira and Avemetatarsalia is Aphanosauria, which is decidedly obscure. Meanwhile, a link to Ornithodira would help curious readers learn about the fact that Pterosaurs are closely related to dinosaurs, and a link to Archosauria would help them learn about the fact that the closest living relatives of birds are crocodilians. Avemetatarsalia is in fact somewhat redundant, and only really useful in the taxobox of an article about either of those other two clades, or a taxon in the clade Avemetatarsalia that is stemward of Dinosauria, because it is actually defined as "birds < crocodilians". And more to the point, Ornithodira and Archosauria are outright used far more frequently in the literature (I have no source for this, but am confident that anyone else who has read the relevant literature will report the same thing). My personal preference is that this item be replaced with Archosauria.

Even worse, the article then skips all the way to Ornithurae(!) I want to accuse the writers of this article of being BANDits. Why on earth is Dinosauria not in there, at the very least? That is basically the only clade below kingdom level that we can be completely certain the casual reader will recognise. Ideally I also want Theropoda as well (since it is both widely known and links to an article that has a lot to say about the ancestry of birds)

It is a bit weird to me that the body of this article trips over itself in "Definition" multiple times to qualify the crown group definition of Aves with the note that some workers do not accept that usage of the term (making it not a consensus), and yet this definition is explictly what is used in the taxbox (as it lists Ornithurae above Aves). This has the potential to confuse readers (namely me). I strongly suggest that the taxobox either be edited to make it consistent with both definitions (perhaps put Maniraptora in its place), or a paragraph be added at the "Definition" section to the effect of "The PhyloCode defines Aves as a crown-group", if we are considering it to be in force, or "Aves" be replaced with "Neornithes" in order to disambiguate.

If the second option is taken, then I would still like to point out that the body of the article also makes a sourced statement that many workers use the term "bird" (if perhaps not Aves) in a wider sense that is equivalent to Avialae. This is also evident in press-releases where the question of whether or not (x) Mesozoic taxon is a "bird" or not tends to be whether it is an Avialan or not (for example, if Archaeopteryx is recovered as a deinonychosaur, that makes it "not a bird after all" (e.g., https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2011.443), this also doubles as another source for that statement about "bird" often meaning "avialan"). So the question is, is this article about the taxon Aves or the category "Bird"? Should the taxobox decide to bolden and author-drop both Avialae and Aves/Neornithes? Even if it shouldn't, I still think that Avialae, being quite relevant to the subject matter, should be at least in the taxobox. Linbot6018 (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The reasons for the taxobox being the way it is are much less sinister than you suggest. It is an automated template. Peter coxhead may be able to help here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The taxon hierarchy may be generated automatically by the taxobox template, but the taxa to display is determined based on discussion. As far as I can tell, Ornithurae as the direct parent and skipping to Avemetatarsalia and Sauropsida has been the arrangement since 2015. Before that the parent was Avialae and the displayed taxa skipped straight to Amniota. I don't think either is ideal.

I'd be in favour of a change, or at least having the discussion on how many taxa to display and which are the important ones. Avemetatarsalia is the taxon including bird, pterosaurs and dinosaurs and excluding crocodiles, which indicates an important evolutionary step, although Archosauria as the group including crocodiles might be a better choice for this evolutionary step. I don't see an advantage of Ornithodira over Avemetatarsalia (neither are used often compared to Archosuria). I can see the case for adding Dinosauria or something similar. [Incidentally the taxobox at dinosaur only shows Dracohors and Chordata, which is useless.] But we don't want to clutter the taxobox with dinosaur taxa. The article is about birds and most people will come here expecting to read about birds.—  Jts1882 | talk  08:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

As Jts1882 notes above, the hierarchy shown in the taxobox is the result of a long standing consensus at WP:WikiProject Birds. Since the same hierarchy will show in the taxobox in every bird article, any discussion about changing it must take place at WT:WikiProject Birds, so that the consensus can be determined. (I have no personal interest either way; my only role in the past has been to facilitate the skip mechanism in the automated taxobox system which allows different taxonomies to be shown in different areas of the tree of life.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I'm not sure there was any discussion that led to a consensus (I can't find one). It seems more a fire-fighting approach where you and ErikHaugen fixed problems as they arose and those solutions stuck. There may now be a simpler Lua solution than /skip templates for the duplicate class. If rak class reappears in the taxonomy (e.g. class Reptilia above class Aves) just change the higher one to clade or unranked in Module:Automated taxobox. With judicious use of a few |always_display= parameters (e.g. at Archosaur and Sauropsida), it might be possible to use a single hierarchy that would produce better output for both Bird and Dinosaur (where I just added a temporary fix with |display_parents= to improve on the limited Dracohors-Chordata heirarchy). —  Jts1882 | talk  10:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jts1882: I think the key consensus at WP:WikiProject Birds was that they wanted "Class: Aves" which is what the old manual taxoboxes had, and which caused a clash with "Class: Reptilia" which is what the old manual taxoboxes had for reptiles (either cladistic or grade-based) and dinosaurs. I'm confident that this consensus then existed; it does need to be tested whether it does now. As you say, ErikHaugen and I just fixed taxonomy templates and the handling of skip ones to make it work for both groups.

Personally, I would be opposed to Module:Automated taxobox over-riding taxonomy templates in any way, because this hides what is going on. Taxonomy templates are supposed to be the "database"; the module just arranges the display.

There are other cases where different groups/wikiprojects have agreed on different hierarchies. WP:PLANTS agreed on "Kingdom: Plantae" as the top level, whereas for algae the taxoboxes by default stop at "(unranked): Viridiplantae" or in some cases "(unranked): Archaeplastida". This isn't a clash of ranks, but is a similar use of skip taxonomy templates to show different hierarchies. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your prompt and helpful response. I will therefore check out what has been said on the matter over there. Linbot6018 (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

New image boxes

Please add a sparrow,swallow,pelican,ostrich imagebox at title composite image to complete the illustration of diversity.place the first two firstly as they are small,and last two lastly as they are big. Only problem is a suitable illustration. 185.171.17.166 (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Old estimate of extinctions - wrong and innacurate number of extinctions.

There has been a new accepted study that showed that in fact 750-1800 species did not go extinct since the end of the Pleistocene or the start of the colonisation of the Pacific islands by humans. The old estimate is from 2006 from a book written by another ornithologist that has been recently disproven.

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/68968197/Fromm_Meiri_2021_extinct_birds-libre.pdf?1630439727=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DBig_flightless_insular_and_dead_Characte.pdf&Expires=1682519576&Signature=fKZkPpWtxHc0nRn~NthlfF8O-EYBwelm5aHyHgpOVhoIgm2Q1mbsOsqCDBsO5zrCSBjz4odbPHmodeDWHZtdEzsnmyj25QlnMx9~bHbrxlu5LchsnBto7bG9FnGSivQSOo4AQnGLrME3CyveBwlFhz5VtDyY~xPN4uC8X2ckH3ofCx3sIaM~FajzzOQK10DrsL8rRZFm4DASOnztk0CNG767II5IzSY5N6-oSSMM5v0ewLdmY30fl5NJoyJDfTSlNIAdXzSfh-87J2vIZrQxp0ueHG-I71I8L~IaPPBBIb8HocBio~oRiTIkOAvjIlmQP~SU6VusiTIc5j4bjn3MAQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

This is the new study that stated that only around 4% of all birds that ever existed went extinct since 50,000 years ago, no mentions of thousands of birds extinct on islands, and it is a supported study by many scientists. It also says that at least 469 extinctions have occurred since 50,000 years ago (the end of the pleistocene), most of them large flightless birds on islands, yes, they claim that there could be more waiting to be found in fossils but it is very highly unlikely that the number is above 100 more. Also only 48 bird species have gone extinct on continents (including australia) the rest are only on islands. I suggest updating the information with this new source and deleting the old and erroneous information. It is highly unlikely the number of extinct species is above 4-5% of the total. Also the bird biodiversity in the pacific islands is still rich with thousands upon thousands of birds living there today. I say we update it. Just wanted to put this out there to start a discussion. This can scare people into thinking the situation is worse when it is not, no, 750-1800 species did not go extinct in oceania, only 469 species of birds have been identified as gone extinct since 50,000 years ago and while more can be found, it is highly unlikely the number would be higher than 600.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jbi.14206 86.124.25.38 (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Also to add, this estimate is from 2021, and a much more reliable and accurate one, I suggest we add this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.25.38 (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Change in second paragraph first sentence

“Birds are feathered theropod dinosaursand constitute the only known living dinosaurs. Likewise, birds are considered reptiles in the modern cladistic sense of the term, and their closest living relatives are the crocodilians.” Change to “Birds are considered reptiles in the modern cladistic sense of the term, being theropod dinosaurs with their closest living relatives are the crocodilians.” I think that’s a better summary of the article text and less jarring in tone. If you think that change is dumb and bad respond so I won’t be aloud to make the edit request lol. If you think the change is good also respond. Alwaysbelieveinhope (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The long-term sentence seems fine as is. I take your "less jarring" to mean that people are not used to realizing that birds are actually dinosaurs, living dinosaurs. That's one reason, aside from accuracy, why the fact could actually be near the start of the lead paragraph, to notify readers of the factual information encyclopedically as soon as possible so as not to "jar" them when it is explained further in the second paragraph. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

By jarring I mean that the sentence is written bad. The reptile, crocodile and dinosaur relationships are super similar information but the article currently reads to me like “I fucking love DINOSAURS, but anyway the phylogenetic relationships birds have…” when I feel like dinosaur, reptile and crocodilian should be treated with equal weight, dinosaur is only a more important piece of information to to dinosaur scientist, not to bird scientists. Since you disagree that the article should be written well I will not submit an edit request. I am the person who posted last time (shocking I know) I do think that me and you should have a duel with like those light up light sabers or something. If you don’t like the edit I suggested it is YOUR responsibility (Randy Kyrn) to change that sentence to something better. If you think that sentence is the best that the largest encyclopedia of human knowledge can muster then you must thing humanity is pathetic. Alwaysbelieveinhope (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I see you're getting personal and want to fight with light sabers. May I point out that I didn't do, or fund, any of the discoveries and research that led to birds being designated biologically as avian dinosaurs. To me this interesting factual information about birds being the last living dinosaurs is first sentence lead worthy. Since dinosaurs are encyclopedically divided between avian dinosaurs and non-avian dinosaurs, leading with reptiles or crocodiles in the second paragraph would miss that major division point, as reptiles are not divided between avian and non-avian. In fact, please read the first few sentences of Wikipedia's reptile page where it separates out birds from the general definition of reptile (something else I had nothing to do with). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

See my comment above. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The divisions of Paleognathae

The small box in the "Diversification of modern birds" section shows that Paleognathae are subdivided into Struthioniformes and Tinamiformes, which is icorrect - Paleognathae are subdivided into Struthioniformes and Notopaleognathae, the latter of which include tinamous (Tinamiformes) along with the kiwis, the emus, the rheas and the cassowaries, all of which are missing from the image box in question. 192.193.116.142 (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The small box caption says "Basal divergences of modern birds based on Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy", which is what is shown. The updated division into five orders is shown in the large phylogenetic trees to its left/below in the "Classification of bird orders" section. Perhaps it would be better to just show Palaeognathae without the orders to avoid confusion. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I've simplified the tree to just show the three major branches. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Second paragraph first sentence is lame

I know 50% of this talk page is this argument but the sentence “Birds are feathered theropod dinosaursand constitute the only known living dinosaurs.” reads to me as being overly pedantic and like someone really thinks their a special little boy for knowing birds are in the same group as dinosaur. top 3 things I hate about this sentence

1. 3 the word feathered should be deleted, many/most theropods were feathered and even if they weren’t feathered it’s a physical description not a cladistic one so shouldn’t be here
2. 2 it says birds are dinosaurs twice
3. 1 “Birds are dinosaurs” without any qualifiers isn’t actually common phrasing in literature. The second sentence says “birds are considered reptiles in the modern cladistic sense of the term” which is a good way to phrase that information and how most ornithologists would probably phrase the fact that birds are cladisticly dinosaurs. The words “bird” and “dinosaur” are common terms first and cladistic terms second. The article on Mammals doesn’t describe them as “milk producing fishes” because that would be silly. The information that birds are dinosaurs and reptiles are 2 super similar pieces of information but the reptile sentence reads like it was written by someone familiar with bird science and the dinosaur sentence written by some pedantic dinosaur fanboy. If reptile gets qualifiers why doesn’t dinosaur?

but anyway the word “feathered” should be deleted 97.113.57.76 (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the general sentiment expressed above, and I would as a minimum add "cladistically". However, "feathered" is correct in this context. The sense is "feathered (theropod dinosaurs)", not "(feathered theropod) dinosaurs", and actually implies, via the qualification, that theropod dinosaurs were not mostly feathered. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Ya but “feathered” feels like an arbitrary qualifier, it’s a physical description not a genetic one 97.113.57.76 (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It is an adequate and notable descriptor, please see the page to which it is linked Feathered dinosaur. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It’s correct, birds do have feathers. Birds having feathers is mentioned in the first sentence. I think the sentence might imply that theropods do not have feathers or that there’s a branch of the theropod lineage that is feathered and one that isn’t. I find it unclear what about birds the word feathered is trying to teach readers. 97.113.57.76 (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a sentence that might have been designed by committee, which it effectively was after many discussions over how much emphasis to put on the birds are dinosaurs. I think this is debatable because dinosaur can be used in both its common language sense excluding birds (just as reptiles excludes birds) or to refer to the clade Dinosauria. I think the lede need only mention that birds are derived from reptiles. Which ones are a detail that can be explained properly later in the article in the context of their evolution. Most people coming to this article will want to read more about the familiar feathered animals that fly or the big ones that don't and will be put off if it starts over technically. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is going against the sense of the previous discussions which had as a major topic 'should the fact that birds are dinosaurs be in the lead paragraph or lower in the lead?' Many editors think it should be a major point in the lead paragraph. The wording under discussion here is already a compromise. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Why are you talking like you aren’t the one that pushed for that sentence in the previous discussions? The discussions above were very mixed. 97.113.57.76 (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

If anything I think it should be in the lead paragraph, but the second paragraph was an adequate work-around compromise. I "pushed" for nothing more than factual coverage, which the page now conveys. I have no idea how many and how far back discussions went, but Wikipedia editors keep pages on their watchlists and come by when the topic refers back to other discussions. Were you, as a named editor, involved in earlier discussions? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I was not involved. I am IP because I was drunk when I posted and forgot I wasn’t logged in on my phone. From someone reading the pages opinion is diverse and I’ve noticed just a few editors being super vocally pro dinosaur vs many less vocal people on the other side. I don’t think it’s good form to say that you won the previous discussion when there was a variety of opinions.

That aside why do you feel that birds being dinosaur should not be qualified with the word “cladisticly” 97.113.57.76 (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think it's pro-dinosaur, the established fact that birds are dinosaurs deserves mention in the lead and the disagreement was as to where. Nobody won, a compromise works for everyone and no one, the essence of compromise and consensus. And no need to qualify the factual representation, the qualifier in this instance would be "avian" dinosaur. Apologies for thinking you may have been involved in past discussions, if I recall correctly without rereading the comments a couple of editors seemed determined not to call birds dinosaurs so was checking if you were one of the past participants. I appreciate the explanation, editing-while-drunk or high is a thing and not many come right out and say it, kudos to you and to honest discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The relation to dinosaurs is important but I think that fact should should be integrated into the sentence about how they are reptiles (i think the connection to reptiles and crocodiles is more important anyway, dinosaurs are hella dead). Plus I think the first sentence is jarring in an otherwise very well written article. “Dinosaur” is a paraphyletic grouping like reptile, fish, monkey, procaryote, invertebrate and many other valid terms in biology which include all but one taxon. The term dinosaur alone is almost always used to refer to the creatures that died 66 million years ago excluding the one group that survived. The sentence below says “birds are considered reptiles in the modern cladistic sense of the term” because that’s how you have to discuss a paraphyletic term. Saying “birds are reptiles” alone would not be fully accurate because the term reptile usually excludes birds. 97.113.57.76 (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Birds are not related to Dinosaurs, birds are dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are not a paraphyletic group, they are only a paraphyletic group if you exclude birds, which you shouldn't be doing and which the phrase you're objecting do doesn't do, so the problem you are trying to address doesn't exist in the first place. No one should understand the term "dinosaurs" in its obsolete bird-excluding sense and this phrase simply helps spread the knowledge to the people who somehow still avoid it. 2A03:32C0:A:462A:1:0:B66E:EB6A (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Dinosaur is really obviously paraphyletic, nobody is arguing that birds are not dinosaurs in a cladistic sense. The term dinosaur almost exclusively refers to non avian dinosaurs because the term predates modern cladistics, just like reptile. Birds are equally dinosaurs and reptiles, two terms that are usually not used to describe them. Dinosaur being paraphyletic is not an anachronism, it is useful to have terms that are not monophyletic. Are modern mammals "Stem mammals"? I understand Being needlessly pedantic is important to dinosaur nerd, but it makes the term dinosaur less useful for it to necessarily mean birds aswell. Always beleive in hope (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Modern mammals are not stem mammals by definition. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Suggested rewording:

"Based on cladistic taxonomy, birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs (and therefore the only living dinosaurs); therefore, they are also reptiles, with their closest living relatives being crocodilians. They descended from Avialae, a lineage of feathered theropods that first appeared in the Late Jurassic with members such as Archaeopteryx."

Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The commonest use of the term "reptile" now seems to be for the paraphyletic group (there's nothing wrong with ordinary language terms being used for paraphyletic groups), and this is also how the article Reptile uses the term. So I would say:

"Based on cladistic taxonomy, birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs (and therefore the only living dinosaurs); their closest living relatives are crocodilians. They descended from Avialae, a lineage of feathered theropods that first appeared in the Late Jurassic with members such as Archaeopteryx."

Peter coxhead (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind this wording. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup, this would do. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Not as written. There is no need for the words "a group of". Why would the three of you want to add that? And why is "cladistic taxonomy" needed as a descriptor instead of just stating the fact, as the long-term and talk-page discussed wording has done. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Because (a) it's important to communciate that birds are a nested group because of the common, incorrect assumption that birds = dinosaurs, and (b) without "cladistic taxonomy" we'll get into this argument every month here with someone who doesn't understand why their vernacular understanding doesn't line up with the page. I'd rather be precise and not waste any more time here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

A "nested group" or "group" seems like extra wording to say the same thing. That birds are theropod dinosaurs. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This is an example of a discussion that comes up regularly in several contexts. "Dinosaur" has two senses. Dinosaur_CL as used in common, non-scientific language, refers to a paraphyletic group that does not include birds. Dinosaur_SL as used in scientific language, refers to a clade that does include birds. Birds are dinosaurs_SL, they are not dinosaurs_CL. All we are asking is that the sentence makes it clear that dinosaur_SL is meant. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2023

I'm requesting an additional source for the section on early diversity of bird ancestors. Early euornithes lacked perching adaptations and included shorebird-like species, waders, and swimming and diving species. (removed the SEEM). The source on this is Pinnipeds geek (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done On the contrary it's plenty clear what the user wanted to be changed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2023

Change “orthinology” to “ornithology”. 2A00:23C7:880B:C101:60E7:26C6:122C:6F31 (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the heads-up. --Technopat (talk) 06:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

You are faster than me. Annh07 (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Fixed Annh07 (talk) 06:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

"Avian dinosaurs" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Avian dinosaurs has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 14 § Avian dinosaurs until a consensus is reached. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2023

In the lead section, change "...the extinct moa and elephant birds." to "...the moa and elephant birds, both extinct." Apparus (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: no reason given for the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Something that would better the Wikipedia page

The page does include many info, such as evolution, etymology, classification, etc., but it doesn't include the sounds of them. That particular portion of data can be put on the top of the page, so it can be seen by the fellow wikipedians. Thank you. 240D:1A:113:9B00:1CD7:1360:320:ED2 (talk) 03:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2023

I want to add this additional information about the skeletal system; The pelvic girdle consists of three paired elements, the ilia, ischia, and pubes, which are fused into a single piece with the synsacrum. The ilium is the most dorsal element and the only one extending forward of the socket of the leg (acetabulum). The ilium is fused with the synsacrum and the ischium the latter of which is fused with the pubis. All three serve as attachments for leg muscles and contribute to the acetabulum, which forms the articulation for the femur. The leg skeleton consists of the thigh bone (femur), main bone of the lower leg (tibiotarsus), fibula, fused bones of the ankle and middle foot (tarsometatarsus), and toes (phalanges). Eayode3 (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I think a modified version of this text may be useful... the anatomy section should focus on what is unique, which in this case is the synsacrum and tibiotarsus. The rest is pretty bog standard tetrapod anatomy. Huxley's diagnosis as quoted in Phylonyms may be useful here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This edit request, as opened, requires reliable sources. It is possible the one provided in Lythronaxargestes's comment could be useful, however the language proposed would need to point to specific parts of the source. Additionallly, Lythronaxargestes has indicated that the entirety of the proposed language may not be appropriate, so further discussion to reach conensus is required. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2024

Please remove these phrases:

Water is needed by many birds
They may also have other adaptations
known for their daily congregations

and add these in their place:

Many birds need water
Some have other adaptations
known for congregating daily

It's good to avoid the passive voice here; "they may also" sounds like it's uncertain; and this is slightly shorter without losing meaning. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I've change the latter two, although I'm think the second could be "Other adaptations include ..." to avoid two successive sentences starting with "Some ...".

I think the first one needs more change. Don't all birds need water? Reduced compared to what? A general statement about bird physiology lowering their water requirments or making their water use more efficient might be better. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Jts1882, the sentence after "Water is needed..." answers your question. Some birds don't need to drink, because their food contains all they need. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Common name

The article is very well written and well structured, however, with a one-word title, Bird, it comes off a bit clunky. Shouldn't this article be entitled Birds rather than simply "Bird". Birds is the common name, as indicated in the first word of the lede and is used throughout the article. People refer to the common usage and say e.g. the "birds and the bees" ... not the bird and the bee.The article is not about one type of bird. e.g.The Robin is a bird;  The Eagle is a bird..
WP:PLURAL says.

The plural form may be acceptable if overwhelmingly favored in definitions of the unit by reliable sources..

Nearly all reliable sources on birds have Birds in the title. No one writes a book or scientific journal about "bird".

See:

Books : — https://archive.org/search?query=birds

Journals : — https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=birds

Especially as a Featured Article, Wikipedia should follow suit. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

You quoted the guideline about Articles about measurement units. Is this an article about a measurement unit? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• You're suggesting that we ignore what the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say, i.e. scholars and the scientific community? Birds.
  I just read a book about "bird"?

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This a common problem with the Wikipedia conventions, which often get taken too literally or are misinterpreted. WP:PLURAL says there are two main types of exception and the first one is "Articles on groups or classes of specific things". Surely the bird article is on a group (class) containing many different bird species (specific things). The example at the top of the page says Dog is used for the domestic dog, but that is one species belong to the family of dogs. That said, this is an argument that is unlikely to be won as the convention is widely interpreted to use the singular for groups of specific things. For some reason Bird seems more grating than Mammal or Reptile. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you. As said, the article is not about one type of bird, but all birds.
  We also have WP:COMMONNAME : "Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Reptilia?

The article for reptiles classifies birds as members of reptilia, but this one doesn't. Why the discrepancy? — Supuhstar * — 15:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC) — Supuhstar * — 15:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

It does. The taxobox lists Aves under Sauropsida. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Migration, the Arctic Tern

So, in this protected article, we find the statement "the longest annual migration being those of sooty shearwaters, which nest in New Zealand and Chile and spend the northern summer feeding in the North Pacific off Japan, Alaska and California, an annual round trip of 64,000 km (39,800 mi).[173]"

Meanwhile, in the article for the Arctic tern, we find: "Recent studies have shown average annual round-trip lengths of about 70,900 km (44,100 mi) for birds nesting in Iceland and Greenland and about 48,700 km (30,300 mi) for birds nesting in the Netherlands."

I'm pretty sure that 70,900 > 64,000. If this article is protected, it must be because of disputes. So let's see the dispute get fought out here. Otherwise, I suggest the article be amended. Surprised to find in a search of the Talk archive this hasn't ever come up before; the remarkable migration of the Arctic tern has been a standard item in elementary school science introduction to birds for at least 60 years 2001:56A:F0E9:9B00:5176:B2B8:95AE:60 (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)JustSomeWikiReader

When written the sooty shearwaters did have the longest recorded migrations, as recording devices were too heavy for smaller birds. It's a shame no one updated the article for the newer recorded distances for the Arctic terns, but the important point is the large distances covered by some birds, when migrating between the polar regions, not which are the record holders. I've updated the article to include the terns. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Number of bird species

The beginning of the article reads "There are over 11,000 living species" without any reference. This is true according to BirdLife taxonomy, but not according to BirdTree, which recognize only about 10,000 species.

A more accurate description is given later in the text: "The number of known living bird species is around 11,000 [56][57] although sources may differ in their precise numbers". The numbers in the references are slightly above or below 11,000. I suggest changing the sentence in the beginning to "There are around 11,000 living species", with the two references given later in the text, also adding a reference to the BirdTree taxonomy: https://birdtree.org/ or https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11631 Yuvalr (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

All three regularly updated checklists are now over 11,000 species. HBW/Birdlife (11,195 species) has been for several years and eBird/Clements (11,017) and the IOC (11,032 extant and 162 extinct) have recently passed 11,000. Refs 56 and 57 can be updated for the new ones. The Howard & Moore checklist recognises less species, but hadn't been updated in ten years (although an update is in progress). The Birdtree number is based on a combination BirdLife v3 (2010) and IOC v2.7 (~2010). So "around 11,000 living species" is a safe statement. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)