FANDOM


  • I think you should delete all the pages that aren't about birds so the wiki is birds only. Just saying.

      Loading editor
    • Also if you don't want to delete them, could you help me make a wiki with only birds?

        Loading editor
    • Sorry but the name stuck. This is about science too.

        Loading editor
    • "Originally, this was supposed to be a bird wiki, but the name stuck."

      http://allbirdsoftheworld.wikia.com/wiki/All_Birds_Wiki%3AFrequently_Asked_Questions

        Loading editor
    • 1) I love adding definitions!

      2) I always wanted a wiki in which I can edit whatever the heck I want to.

      3) No, I will not help you, because I'm in Canada atm.

        Loading editor
    • Science, history and mathematics all connect. A hawk eats a squirrel. A squirrel eats an acorn. The acorn grows in the dirt. Also, doesn't a bird fly in the air? And a penguin in the ocean?

      Also this:

      https://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience

        Loading editor
    • Also, another reason why I won't help you... look at all the changes: http://jboyd.net/Taxo/changes.html

      I need to implement them all, but even I don't have enough time to!

        Loading editor
    • Birds are reptiles! Reptiles are amphibians! Amphibians are fish! Fish are primitive vertebrates! Primitive vertebrates are multi-celled creatures!!

      See how Reptilia pops up on this template? Wanna explain that?

      Osprey
      Temporal range: 16.3–0 Ma Barstovian to Present
      Osprey mg 9605
      North American Subspecies
      Scientific classification
      Domain: Eukaryota
      (unranked): Unikonta
      (unranked): Opisthokonta
      (unranked): Holozoa
      (unranked): Filozoa
      Kingdom: Animalia
      Subkingdom: Eumetazoa
      Clade: Bilateria
      Clade: Nephrozoa
      Superphylum: Deuterostomia
      Phylum: Chordata
      Clade: Craniata
      Subphylum: Vertebrata
      Infraphylum: Gnathostomata
      Clade: Eugnathostomata
      Clade: Teleostomi
      Superclass: Tetrapoda
      Clade: Amniota
      Clade: Avialae
      Clade: Euavialae
      Clade: Avebrevicauda
      Clade: Pygostylia
      Clade: Ornithothoraces
      Clade: Euornithes
      Clade: Ornithuromorpha
      Clade: Ornithurae
      Class: Aves
      Infraclass: Neognathae
      Superorder: Neoaves
      Clade: Inopinaves
      Clade: Telluraves
      Clade: Afroaves
      Superorder: Accipitrimorphae
      Fain & Houde, 2004
      Order: Accipitriformes
      Vieillot, 1816
      Family: Pandionidae
      Sclater & Salvin, 1873
      Genus: Pandion
      Savigny, 1809
      Species: P. haliaetus
      Binomial name
      Pandion haliaetus
      Linnaeus, 1758
        Loading editor
    • It is a classic example of paraphyly.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphyly

      And birds are a class of reptiles, so reptiles should not be included.

        Loading editor
    • "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2010)"

      Lolwut?

        Loading editor
    • @PvZBeast234

      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.

        Loading editor
    • ^You hit the nail on the coffin! YellowToad is 100% correct!

      http://www.biokids.umich.edu/critters/Reptilia/

      "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."

      Birds are archosaurs too, like the clade Suchia.

        Loading editor
    • "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."

      http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=625596


      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.”

      http://www.birds.cornell.edu/Publications/Birdscope/Autumn2008/feathered_dinosaurs.html


      "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."

      http://www.biokids.umich.edu/critters/Reptilia/

        Loading editor
    • ^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!

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

      *facepalming*
        Loading editor
    • Agreed. Wikis especially take a lot of work.

      PVBeast, I request you end this issue now. We're content with what we have on this Wiki, and if you don't like it - please make or find another Wiki of your own. We're not changing it anytime soon.

      We'll be doing our best to continue growing ABW in the way we'd like to see it improve. Thank you very much.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

      Please, end this now.

        Loading editor
    • Looks like we won!

      Also screw you. This is our wiki. Quit forcing this BS upon us. Or forever feel our wrath! Muahaha.

      Thank you.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.