Talk:Bird

Birds are Dinosaurs in the Lead

Reopening this because there no longer seems to be agreement on what the consensus is. This has been discussed extensively on this page in the past. The discussion revolves around some related questions:

• Should the connection between birds and dinosaurs be mentioned in the lead sentence/paragraph of the article?
• Should the lead of the article refer to birds *as* dinosaurs, versus saying something like they evolved from or are descended from dinosaurs?
• Should the lead say or imply that usage of the word “dinosaur” to exclude birds is wrong?
• Should the lead explain what is meant by saying that birds are dinosaurs?

All of the above also applies to referring to birds as reptiles, although nobody seems to be suggesting that the lead sentence should call birds reptiles, not sure why.

I think the following things are uncontroversial:

• The ancestors of modern birds are Mesozoic theropod dinosaurs.
• Scientists generally use “dinosaur” as a synonym of the taxonomic group Dinosauria and would thus say that birds are dinosaurs.
• The popular conception of dinosaurs does not include birds.

Things I would argue:

• "The ancestors of modern birds are Mesozoic theropod dinosaurs." is the important information that we want the reader of this lead section to come away with.
• The casual reader does not need to know how scientists use the word “dinosaur” on a page about birds.
• It is not Wikipedia’s job to police how people use the English language, and we shouldn’t imply that other usages of the word dinosaur are incorrect.
• If the lead is going to refer to birds as dinosaurs, it needs to explain why
• A focus on this usage of “dinosaur” is unnecessary in the lead
• It’s perfectly acceptable for the appropriate section of the article itself to call birds dinosaurs, explain why, and then continue with that usage.

My proposal:

• The lead sentence refers to birds as vertebrates, with no reference to dinosaurs or reptiles in the lead paragraph
• The language in the second paragraph that talks about evolution is something like:

“Birds are descended from Mesozoic theropod dinosaurs and are the only living representatives of that group. Their closest living relatives are the crocodilians.” Somatochlora (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

No need for further clarification as the present lead sentence, "Birds are a group of warm-blooded theropod dinosaurs constituting the class Aves" has been the lead since late October 2025 and hopefully read by all of the main editors here. The language is accurate, brief, and encyclopedic. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The most important classification of birds is that they are vertebrate animals, placing them in context with other things that exist in the world. The pages for mammal, fish, reptile, and amphibian all use "vertebrate animal" in the lead sentence. Instead this page refers to them by reference to two groups of which birds are the only extant members. The idea that this page about a diverse, familiar, economically and culturally important group of animals should immediately start with a reference to what extinct taxa they are related to seems absurd. Somatochlora (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Please add 'vertebrate animal' in the lead listing, thanks Somatochlora. Room for both descriptors in the opening sentences, but the uniqueness among living animals of the dinosaur descriptor shows the importance of continuing that classification at first mention. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I just do not understand why listing a specific taxonomic group that birds are the only living members of could be considered important enough to mention before even talking about the basic characteristics and diversity of extant birds. Yeah, it's cool that birds are dinosaurs, and there is lots of pseudoscience out there trying to deny the link, both of which are why, I assume, people feel strongly about this, but I think objectively it is just not one of the key facts that needs to be mentioned in the first sentence of the article laying out what we are even talking about when we say "bird". We could also mention that birds are eukaryotes, chordates, archosaurs, or avemetatarsalians in the lead sentence but we need to make some choices about what is most important. Somatochlora (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

"Dinosaur" covers those terms and is much more understandable to the reader. The importance of the first sentence mention covers many aspects of animal life without explaining in-depth - that dinosaurs survived when people have been told their whole lives that no, they are extinct. That dinosaurs only extant branch are everywhere. That the success of the dinosaur, now represented by over 11,000 species, ranks with the most important animal legacies. And so on. Keeping the fact up-front, and adding the 'vertebrate' descriptor, would cover all bases (to spout an accurate sports term). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

This page is about birds though, not dinosaurs. It is very important for the article about dinosaurs to stress that dinosaurs still exist in a sense. It is less important for this article, which is why it should be left to the second paragraph like it was for several years. The lead sentence should clearly and concisely lay out what the topic of the article is. "Vertebrate animal" is perfect in describing how birds are related to other extant animals. Adding "dinosaur" does not clarify, it is at worst confusing and at best merely communicates how birds are related to certain extinct animals. I do not understand how expressing how an extant taxon is related to extinct animals can possibly seen as an important thing to communicate in the very first sentence of the article. Somatochlora (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

But dinosaur just means a member of Dinosauria which birds are. As time progresses, books and stuff include the fact that birds are dinosaurs. Popular conceptions would make things like Dimetrodon a "reptile" which it isn't, it's a synapsid or a stem-mammal. It can NOT be a reptile because reptiles=sauropsids. ~2026-17247-67 (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

No, "dinosaur" and "reptile" are English words that do not always mean what you are suggesting. I use "reptile" all the time professionally to mean turtles, lizards, and snakes, a useful category of wildlife to take about. I would be laughed out of the room if I suggested we needed to start including birds in that category. Somatochlora (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Dinosaur is not an english word, it's a taxonomic name, therefore it is not wrong, and will never be wrong or unconventional, to call birds "dinosaurs". ~2026-45607-12 (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

"Dinosaur" is an English word. "Dinosauria" is a taxonomic word. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

For birds I think it makes sense to point out that they are dinosaurs, even though it's nerdy. It best characterizes them in the tree of life, for example in relation to mammals.

It's not the same as saying humans are a type of tetrapod fish, a characteristic they share with all mammals and indeed also with birds. This does not set them apart. By contrast, Birds as surviving dinosaurs sets them apart.

Aecur (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether to state prominently that birds are dinosaurs (using scientific definitions), it's whether it is the most important feature of birds and gets stated in the opening sentence. The second paragraph covers the evolution of birds from within dinosaurs (English language terms) in enough detail that people can understand the context. Stating it bluntly in the first sentence is more likely to confuse and is not appropriate for a general article on birds (second paragraph is still prominent), whereas it would be for a more specialised article on evolution of birds

The opening sentence needs to inform people about what a bird is. Does telling them that birds are dinosaurs tell them anything useful? What characteristis of dinosaurs is informative about the nature of birds? It would be far more informative to mention that they are chordates or vertebrates or amniotes, which tell you something important about their biology. I would personally favour "amniotic vertebrates" in place of "theropod dinosaurs" in the opening sentences and leave the dinosaur affinity until the second paragraph.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this.

The first sentence should not state that birds are dinosaurs. It's misleading for all of the reasons already stated by others. TravelinGcauldroN (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

And thank you for your only edit on Wikipedia. Since this is your first edit I'd request that you actually explain, in your own words, how stating a clear long-term fact is "misleading". Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

It’s redundant and would be too pedantic, it would be like changing the respective ledes to call snakes as a type lizard, toads as a type of frog, butterflies as a type of moth, mammals as a type of synapsid, termites as a type of cockroach, whales as a type of ungulate. While all are correct, it would be strange to have them in the lede rather than in a section where the taxonomy is discussed The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Mammals count as surviving synapsids, however there is no need to mention that in the lede, “synapsid” evokes a different meaning in English than the one it has in prehistoric pedantry. Same applies to birds being dinosaurs The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

>The ancestors of modern birds are Mesozoic theropod dinosaurs.

Sure. And the ancestors of modern humans are Miocene great apes. Humans are still great apes. Birds are still dinosaurs. This wording seems to suggest that birds used to be dinosaurs and now are something different. That is, taxonomically, biologically, and genetically, not the case. This is well-established scientific consensus, not a fringe viewpoint.

>Scientists generally use “dinosaur” as a synonym of the taxonomic group Dinosauria and would thus say that birds are dinosaurs.

Correct. Which is why birds should be called dinosaurs. They are a member of clade Dinosauria. They are literally dinosaurs.

>The popular conception of dinosaurs does not include birds.

Irrelevant. Wikipedia is intended as a source of factual information. It is not beholden to whatever the 'popular conception' of something is. If the popular conception is that birds aren't dinosaurs, then the popular conception is wrong and people who hold this conception should then use Wikipedia as a tool for learning. There are dozens of examples of popular conceptions that are false; Wikipedia does not cater to those errant viewpoints, nor should it to this one.

Case in point: the "popular conception" is that "primate" means a monkey; a chimp, or a gorilla or something. Yet the lead sentence of the article on Humans describes humans as primates. Should we change that too?

>Things I would argue:

>"The ancestors of modern birds are Mesozoic theropod dinosaurs." is the important information that we want the reader of this lead section to come away with.

Again, you are implying that birds *were* dinosaurs and now are something else -- even if you are just attempting to articulate the "popular conception". This is false; birds *are* dinosaurs and I again take issue with the notion that we exist to bolster whatever the popular conception of something is rather than providing factual information.

>The casual reader does not need to know how scientists use the word “dinosaur” on a page about birds.

I find the notion that we should not relay factually correct information based on the opinions of a handful of people who have decided they speak for "the casual reader". This is Wikipedia, not an "ELI5" Reddit post. Can you articulate something that is harmful, factually incorrect or inappropriately confusing about referring to birds -- which are dinosaurs -- as dinosaurs?

>It is not Wikipedia’s job to police how people use the English language, and we shouldn’t imply that other usages of the word dinosaur are incorrect.

And yet you seem to think it's Wikipedia's job to police wording that strays from the "popular conception" of a topic.

This same standard is not applied elsewhere, and I fail to see the utilitarian value in the instance on making an exception in this case. See also: humans being referred to as "primates" in the Humans article. Are we not "policing the English language" when we refer to humans as primates when most people don't colloquially use the term "primate" in that manner?

>If the lead is going to refer to birds as dinosaurs, it needs to explain why

Because birds are dinosaurs the same way they're warm-blooded, vertebrate, animals, etc. It is an accurate description and the current scientific consensus on the matter. You are again applying a standard to this article that is not applied elsewhere.

>A focus on this usage of “dinosaur” is unnecessary in the lead

The idea that using the word "dinosaur" once in the lead constitutes a "focus" is silly. It is given no more special focus than the other taxonomical/biological descriptors.

>It’s perfectly acceptable for the appropriate section of the article itself to call birds dinosaurs, explain why, and then continue with that usage.

The article on Humans leads with humans being primates and then expands on it later in the article. I don't see why that standard shouldn't be applied here as well. ~2026-24824-58 (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Birds in common knowledge are a distinct group. If we want to be pedantic, we can skip dinosaurs altogether and have birds listed as a “species of warm-blooded reptile” in the lede, which they are. The taxonomy section is more appropriate to describe the technicalities of the bird’s origins and how they are a group of dinosaurs. It is the equivalent of listing snakes as a “type of lizard” or gorillas/chimpanzees as a “type of monkey” in the lede section of the article The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe a good clarifier would be stressing that "bird" is not a monophyletic clade, but a rather a group distinguished by its characteristics and social context. CVDX (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, it's incredibly disheartening that in so many of the previous edits made in opposition to the old opening sentence, the only real argument made against it is that this wording could only have been motivated by an interest in "shocking" the reader, rather than to honestly educate them. This is a harmful away to approach knowledge which should have no place here.

Secondly, I find the entire argument that Wikipedia should make a distinction between the "colloquial" and "scientific" usages of the term "dinosaur" to be presumptive, because it presumes the existence of a useful "colloquial" meaning at all, rather than one simply used out of ignorance. At least when it comes to the term "reptile", there is an academic basis to use this term paraphyleticly, which is not true of "dinosaur". As a Wikipedia editor, unless you are able to cite a source that there is reason to do so, you have no way of knowing whether the average person actively distinguishes between "birds" and "dinosaurs" for a reason, or because they genuinely don't know of the connection, and you should never presume that providing the reader with truthful information will confuse them. By using this line of reasoning, you aren't catering Wikipedia to an existing definition, but are using Wikipedia to invent one.

The strongest argument I see against opening the article by mentioning dinosaurs is that birds are the only extant members of Dinosaura, and it is uncommon on Wikipedia to mention a clade to which a group belongs when it is the only extant member. However, it should be pointed out that - if the cladistic definition of "reptile" were not academically ambiguous - then "reptile" would undoubtedly take precedence of "vertebrate". If we adhere to the idea that an article should not open by mentioning a group's extinct cousins, then that leaves birds in an awkward spot where the smallest clade we can immediately place them in is "vertebrates", despite the fact that there are many more specific groups in-between which the average reader is surely very familiar with and which have broad academic interest. Dinosaura provides us with a widely recognized and unambiguous grouping which allows us to bridge this gap, giving the reader considerably more insight into the evolutionary history of birds than simply referring to them as "vertebrates". Amatmilen (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Reptile is a paraphyletic term which can be helpful to use. Reptile = non-bird sauropsid. Simple as that. Just like how fishis a paraphyletic term that refers to non-tetrapod vertebrates

If you want to remove it from the lede, the alternative explanation below needs to explain how you can NOT evolve out of a clade and that therefore birds=dinosaurs. The more we learn about dinosaurs and feathers, combined with the fact the first archosaurs probably had protofeathers and were warm blooded, else it might perpetrate the BAND theory.

"Dinosaur" is a scientific term meaning anything in the clade Dinosauria.If you let stupid colloquialisms in, then it would make pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, itchyosaurs dinosaurs which none of them are. Plus, the lede explains the choice why it refers to birds as such. Doing anything else would make it more wordy.

~2026-17247-67 (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

You are still imposing rules on English words that simply do not exist. You may wish that they were used in that way, but they aren't (exclusively). Anyways, it's kind of beside the point. The current version of the second paragraph is acceptable to me, even if I think it is super unnecessary compared to just saying something like "birds evolved from dinosaurs" which means the same thing and communicates it in a much clearer and more concise way. But it's clear to me that there are a lot of people that really need it to literally say "birds are dinosaurs" for reasons that are still unclear to me. What I have a serious problem with is calling birds dinosaurs in the first sentence of the article. The fact that birds are members of this otherwise extinct group is way less important than their basic characteristics and relations to other living animals, which is what that introductory sentence should communicate. Somatochlora (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Somatochlora, then please communicate the vertebrate data and other basic characteristics in the first sentence, but leave the long-term (4 1/2 months in the lead sentence) dinosaur descriptor, which also qualifies as a basic characteristic, there as well. No need to diminish the basic fact: birds are dinosaurs. Didn't evolve from dinosaurs. The only living dinosaur. An amazing story of species survival and distribution as well as daytime air domination (bats usually have the night air to themselves, but a few birds share that space). Wikipedia point to two branches of dinosaurs: the avian and the non-avian. Continuing lead sentence worthy. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you feel that the connection between birds and dinosaurs is so important? You are listing important facts about birds, and important facts about dinosaurs, but that does not explain why making the link between them is so immediately important. Like, the information is included in the *eighth* sentence of the article. Why isn't that enough?

Birds are a huge, diverse, familiar, economically and culturally important group of animals. It just seems obvious to me that explaining their relation to certain extinct animals is extremely undue emphasis in the first few words of talking about them. Their relation to other living animals is way more important, and we can only mention a fraction of the important clades for that in the lead (archosaur, reptile, amniote, tetrapod, vertebrate, chordate, bilaterian, animal...). What is wrong with the lead sentence just reading "Birds are a group of warm-blooded vertebrate animals"? Somatochlora (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Common sense, among other reasons, and yes, adding vertebrate is important and should be done. The stable mention is not about connecting birds to extinct animals but to accurately define them as the extant members of that group of well-known animals, and the lead sentence seems the appropriate place to do that. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Have added 'vertebrate' to the lead sentence, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

The merit of birds being dinosaurs has nothing to do with some implied fixation on emphasizing them to extinct groups. As other users have already pointed out, Dinosaur/Dinosauria are not informal terms, they are scientific terms with a specific definition that do not adhere to colloquialism.

I understand the reasoning for comprehension reasons, however selectively minimizing or avoiding the term to cater to popular misconception undermines Wikipedia's factual integrity. Again, as others have pointed out, Dinosaur/Dinosauria is a clade that birds belong to. As humans are primates, birds are dinosaurs. Emphasizing birds as warm-blooded vertebrates appears more as obfuscation around that fact. Whereas we immediately express that humans are primates to illuminate their position taxonomically and biologically within the article's lead, the same should be for the bird article. It's about consistency.

Respect to long-standing scientific consensus should be priority, especially to dispel inaccurate conventions. Bardusquus (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Primate is the Order for Humans, rather than an in between clade. A more consistent example would perhaps be saying humans are a species of monkey. CMD (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello Chipmunkdavis. Consider if humans were the only extant monkey, would that be first paragraph worthy? Primateivly yours, Randy Kryn (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Humans are the only extant Homo, and that is in the fourth paragraph. CMD (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm targeting a cladistic adherence rather than Linnaean classification, CMD. I know the word is muddied due to historic paraphyly, but yes humans and apes are cladistically monkeys if you consider members of the Catarrhini 'monkeys', which humans and great apes are nested in. Not really equatable with Dinosaur which originated as a formal scientific term despite contemporary colloquialism. Bardusquus (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the lead needs to mention dinosaurs in two separate places. I think "vertebrate" is the appropriate descriptor for the first sentence, with "dinosaur" mentioned in the second paragraph. Plantdrew (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Both descriptors are appropriate, "vertebrate" and the long term dinosaur wording. I've edited it to "Birds are a group of warm-blooded vertebrate theropoda dinosaurs constituting the class Aves..." which seems to cover the topic. The second paragraph describes what is meant for those who are not aware, but leaving the stable language as is and adding vertebrates works well. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

"Avian proteins" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Avian proteins 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/2026 June 22 § Avian proteins until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion

"Birds are a group of warm-blooded vertebrate animals....." Wouldnt it be better to change that part to : "Birds are a group of warm-blooded reptiles....." in order to be more in line with scientific consensus? In modern biology phylogenetic classification is considered superior to Linnaean taxonomy. ~2026-37597-27 (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

No, for the same reason we don't say "Birds are a group of warm-blooded dinosaurs..." That part of the article is not the place to introduce that fact. - - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

"Duck sex" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Duck sex 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/2026 June 29 § Duck sex until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Cladogram

I am more frustrated by the Cladogram. Is there someway to be able to read the entire Cladogram? Large parts of the Cladogram are redacted. User:cn7614929 10:10 17 July 2026 (UTC) ~2026-33259-38 (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Please log in to comment or edit. cladograms are not often readable on mobile devices. Please log in on a computer to see the information more clearly. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by redacted? Some parts are off-screen, but can be seen by scrolling. Using landscape mode also helps on mobiles. The cladogram is large and contains a lot of information, which doesn't show fully on desktops either. Some sort of zoom feature would be nice, but this is not possible without ability to use SVG images inline.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

On my small screen (on a desktop) I notice that the large cladogram does scroll but only when it has focus, i.e., after I've clicked on it first. For me it's not a problem (but it's a little unexpected). - Kweetal nl (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh that's even more interesting. I'm using the older Vector skin and I don't have any issues. I can see all of the cladograms in their entirety just by scrolling the article. Another win for keeping with the old skin! - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

That does not really help. I am using a desktop computer with a 24 inch monitor. On the cladogram redacted are Strisores (everything to the right of where it list Nightjars). Below that labels Austrodyptornithes and Pelecanimorphae are cut in half. The same is true of the last two clades (everything to the right of Mousebirds and Seriemas). As far as Passerines I do not see anything at all.There is one way to view the redacted portions, but you have to know what you are looking for. That is do a word search. I even tried using the shift key and the scroll bar, but with what Wikipedia gives me I cannot scroll right or left even when I “hide” those two sidebars Wikipedia put in place in 202/4/2025. "Vector Skin" was mentioned, and may be the answer to the problem. Like stated, I am using the skin version that has the two hidable sidebars as of 2024/2025. It has been vexing since they introduced it. Can I get rid of it? User:cn7614929 12:25 18 July 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-33259-38 (talk)

@Cn7614929 and ~2026-33259-38: if you log in you can choose another skin in your Preferences (under Appearance). Otherwise, on an ad hoc basis you can change the view of a page by appending &useskin=vector to the URL. (Not the usual ‘reading’ kind of URL containing /wiki/ but the ‘custom’ version—sorry, I don’t know the proper names—with /w/index.php?title= in it.)—Odysseus1479 20:33, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I can see the problem if I change my preferences to Vector 2022. Because of changes introduced with this skin, page content (e.g. cladograms) that exceeded the page width could overlap items on the right (I forget the exact problem). The solution was to wrap the cladogram in a div element that added scroll bars when content overflowed. As mentioned above, you can see the horizontal scroll bar if the cladogram gets mouseover focus (place mouse over cladogram and you can see the scrollbar at the bottom of the cladogram). This change had unfortunate consequences for pages with large cladograms, which are not good content for scrolling.

For this particular page, the problem is there are so many elements (images, cladograms) floated to the right that these are pushed down to the right of the cladogram. Some of these could be deleted or the earlier cladograms could be placed inline so they appear where they are discussed. I'm finding it difficult to trace which sections have the wikitext for some of the cladograms. In the meantime, I've added a {{clear}} template to end the floating before the large cladogram. This allows the cladogram to use the full width of the page, although it still can't overflow to the right which works well with the other skins.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC).

The collage isn't working.

There are too many images and we can't focus on one bird. To be honest I think just one image would suffice, like File:Rock dove - natures pics.jpg. If you took a picture of nearly any bird and showed it to the average person, if they didn't know the species or group, they would default to calling it a bird. That should tell you something. LittleJerry (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good idea because this article is about an animal class, a pretty large one at that, with more than 11,000 described species. Your proposal of one image to represent a group is not a bad idea when dealing with lower level classifications like species, family, or order, or even groups of creatures that one would assume are under the aforementioned classifications. Would you say that the mammal, reptile, fish, and amphibian articles should likewise only be represented by one image? That's the impression I'm getting from your post. And plus I'm pretty sure not everybody immediately thinks of a pigeon when they hear the word bird—others think of chickens, eagles, ducks, cassowaries, parrots, etc. The average person knows well that a "bird" can be many things, and will most likely expect to see an array of plumages when clicking on this article. There truly is no typical bird. Wolverine X-eye (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

It's impossible to convey the diversity of any large taxon, there are like 250 families of birds, and some of those families have hundreds of species. The current image is a visual mess. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:21, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I've already made my case of when it is appropriate to use a montage for the lead at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Use_of_galleries_and_montages_for_lead_images. It doesn't matter may many species a taxon has, if a group can be easily represented by an archetype, then one thing is appropriate. I'm not suggesting that people only think of pigeons when they hear 'bird', but feathers, wings and beaks. LittleJerry (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps not the photo to go with, but it's a lot of birds

Do we have any single photos with multiple birds? Might be worth looking into, even if it turns out not as good as a single pigeon. CMD (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, 18 images in a collage feels like overdoing it. Five or six seems a good amount, give the readers a well prepared arrangement which tells the story, maybe one or two of those would be multi-birded, and that might work. In fact, how about two on top, two in the middle, and then the bottom image of a major flock in flight (flamingos?) spanning across the entire bottom. But yes, 18 is a flock too many. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Jts1882? LittleJerry (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

How about this? A snogbird in flight

LittleJerry (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

ssytem = system

locked; cannot change.~2026-32542-29 (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:11, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Help on image

Can anyone fix the gap between the infobox image and the infobox? Dogmaster5559 (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

done, removed all of the unneeded sizing in the infobox and retained the image. But returned the previous image as your choice was not discussed on the talk page. Note that in your image the bird faces out from the page while the present image faces in towards the text, Wikipedia's preferred composition. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Who picked the last one? It isn't very clear compared to the many featured ones we have available. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:12, 20 September 2026 (UTC)