Category talk:Birds

Birds Category‑class

Birds is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles

Category

This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more)
Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more)
Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more)
Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more)
NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more)
Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more)
Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more)
Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more)
Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

Untitled[edit]

I have been putting major cat articles of birds in both their taxo cat and cat:birds to make them easier to find. I have also linked common name subcats to main cat:birds to enable easy finding. This is not perfect and I am open for suggestions/criticism. --DanielCD 17:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a special category like Cat:Scientific clasiffication cats? --DanielCD 17:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bird is a group in therapod![edit]

Please add the category of "therapod" and "dinosaur".222.225.110.213 08:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birds are not dinosaurs and should not be categorized under them. β^_command 19:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second this view. We seem to have had stealth editors sneak in this categorization without any support of consensus.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are English words, which have meanings government by common usage, not claudistic analysis. In common English usage dinosaur refers to a class of animals that all went extint millions of years before the first humans came to be. THis is how my Physical anthopology professor used the term in arguing that dionsaurs and humans never coexisted. Here [1] states dinosaurs died out 65 million years before the first humans existed. Here [2] is another firm no to dinosaurs and humans ever coexisting. I could cite lots and lots and lots and lots more sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We even have articles with titles like this [3] which clearly treat bird as a group distinct from dinosaur even in a source that heavily discusses their relationship.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
None of the three sources mentioned are useful: #1 is an example of the USGS being drawn into a theological argument, #2 the headline of the article in Discovery Magazine is belied in the first paragraph, #3 the headline in the article from Smithsonian Magazine is belied in the second paragraph. Reading at least two paragraphs from any source should be a requirement; headlines are never reliable sources. — Neonorange (Phil) 21:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CFD consensus

The discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_6#Birds ended with a consensus that category:Birds should not be directly a member of Category:Dinosaurs since that bypasses the existing proper categorisation via Category:Paravians. Moreover, categories for birds in popular culture (etc) should not be sub-cats of those for dinosaurs. – Fayenatic London 08:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Living dinosaurs[edit]

I added Category:Living dinosaurs and was good faith reverted by Fayenatic london who pointed out a discussion in which 'Dinosaurs' was removed as a category and thus category Birds is buried nine (9) categories down from 'Dinosaur' (buried deeper than the deepest non-avian dinosaur fossils) even though they constitute well over 10,000 living species. But if anything is normal in this topsy-turvy world of dinosaurs literally surrounding us in air and tree it is that category 'Birds' should be listed in Category:Living dinosaurs, as they are the only living dinosaurs. So rather then digging nine categories deep to find them, here is an almost unarguable category that they should belong in. They are dinosaurs, and they are living. If they don't belong here then the name of that category should be changed. Those seem to be the only options here. Maybe 'Dinosaurs in pseudoscience', or 'Living dinosaurs excluding birds', or another choice to politely hide the birds from that category too (another way to say "Nine categories down", need a Oceans 11 hole-digger to find them). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fayenatic london, should I add Category:Living dinosaurs back? With that name the category seems best and most accurately represented by Category:Birds, aside from someone writing a category descriptor which limits it. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have added back category:Living dinosaurs, per category name and talk page silent consensus. Birds are dinosaurs, and they are alive. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]