First of all, that article is lacking proper citations as StaraptorEmpoleon pointed out.
Second of all, all living things are proven to be connected to each other. What's the issue of having pages for reptiles, mammals, fish, etc? Much like birds - they are all living creatures!
Also check out this Wiki - the main emphasis is of course still on birds! That's what we're working on - many bird articles and improving them /keeping up to date with the taxonomy. SE has worked real hard in doing that!
Also - this is StaraptorEmpoleon's Wiki. She makes the calls and she's had these reptile pages and other animal+ science based articles since early on. She can add whatever article she wishes and none of them are non-related anyways as the Wiki stays true to the love of animals and science (with the main emphasis still being on BIRDS!)
No harm in keeping articles for other living species as they are all living creatures and stay true to our expectations for our Wiki.
"From a cladastic point of view, the class [R]eptilia is not valid even today. Reptiles are now considered a polyphyletic classification. They did not branch of at the same time.
Reptiles don't have enough in common to be considered a biologically relevant grouping. The crocodile is not a lizard any more than a dolphin is a fish.
Squamata (lizards, snakes), Testudinata (turtles, tortoises), Rhynchocephelia (Sphenodon), and [C]rocodilia (alligators, crocodiles, caimans, gavails) are different orders of extant reptiles. However, the evidence is that these four orders branched off at completely different times.
In terms of a cladogram, crocodilians are closer related to birds then to [S]quamata, testudinata (sic) or [R]hynchocephelia. Some scientists prefer to group crocodilians, birds and dinosaurs into one group called archosaurs.
There are a few groups of mammal-like reptiles that lived before the dinosaurs. Pelycosaurs, therapsids and gorgonoids were first classified as reptiles, just like the dinosaurs were first classified as reptiles. However, research over the last few years shows that these reptiles are closer related to mammals than they were to dinosaurs.
There is a lot of controvery (sic) about grouping testudinata and squamata together. Some evidence indicates testudinata (sic) may be closer related to archosaurs than to [S]quamata. However, the testudinata (sic) split off very early from both archosaurs and [S]quamata.
It appears that in terms of natural history, reptiles are not a well defined group. The four extant orders have a skin deep resemblance to each other. However, they did not split off from each other later than they split off from the mammal line.
If you include extinct animals in taxonomy, it gets even more difficult to think of reptiles as a monophyletic clade. Before the Permian Triassic extinction 250 MYA, there was a continuum of creatures that could be classified as archosaurs. There were fewer distinctive features between birds, crocodilians and dinosaurs in the Jurassic. However, these animals differed a great deal from [S]quamata, pterodactyls and mososuars (sic).
Reptiles are a historically useful class derived from Linnean taxonomy. Historical categories are useful for looking up things in the library or even on the internet. If everybody kept reclassifying organisms to keep up with research that is continually being done, no one could keep track of that research. Libraries would go broke reshuffling their books every few months. However, reptiles is not a useful category when correlating facts about nature."
Dinosaurs are still, of course, considered reptiles, leading to a natural follow-up question: if birds are really dinosaurs, and dinosaurs are reptiles, should birds be considered reptiles? The answer again is yes: herpetologists, the scientists who specialize in the study of amphibians and reptiles, take great pleasure in reminding their ornithologist colleagues that birds might correctly be thought of as “avian reptiles.”
"Snakes, lizards, turtles, crocodilians, and birds also all share an evolutionary history. Many years of research has proven that the ancestors of birds were bird-like dinosaurs (visit the Dinobuzz page for more on this). Even though birds look very different from other living reptiles, they’re most closely related to alligators and crocodiles and clearly belong in the reptile group."
^This so much! Reptiles and birds actually have a load in common, and regardless - they're all animals to boot! MUCH more bird articles anyways too, so I don't see why this is a big issue as the Wiki still focuses on its main premise.
Also look at the front page. It lists all kinds of wildlife in addition to birds!
I don't get it either. :/ Birds, reptiles, fish, mammals, insects, amphibians, other invertebrates are all animals. Who cares about paraphyly and monophyly? We all share the same ancestor. Hell, we should all be called reptiles, because the amniote ancestors were reptile-like.
Besides, the name stuck. I heard it's a pain in the arse to change a wiki's name. Doesn't sound like it's worth it, really.
Okay, but paraphyly is a real thing. And you don't need to include everything - you can just make a new wiki with a new name. And reptiles are not birds so there is no reason to include them in a bird wiki if this was just about birds.
If you read through the various articles and descriptions we've provided, even those who specialize in reptile studies recognize birds as "avian reptiles".
To create a new Wiki would take a load of work considering the amount of articles already placed here. Do you realize how much work it would take to update taxonomy and bird articles - SE has worked very hard on that! As opposed to complaining about the non-bird articles, why not just help out with the bird articles and ignore the rest?
The Wiki is perfectly fine as is. Plenty of bird articles.
Exactly. I don't need to create a new wiki. I already have enough on my hands: taking care of this wiki, my forum: Animal Warriors Universe and GamerzUniverse as well as the AWU Wiki too. All four of these things are plenty of work! Not to mention, I have a job. I also love to write too.
Yes, please. If you don't like AWU, please make your own wiki that YOU can edit and make it look nice. I've edited ABW almost 40,000 times. I've worked hard to make it look nice, and have book, magazine, website references for species pages instead of Wikipedia. I also appreciate YellowToad's contributions too. He makes ABW look nice too.