Talk:Reptile

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hartmacl.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Conservation section

While this is an article on a broad topic that has been around for a long time, there should probably be a section on "Conservation of reptiles". A few sentences from the Turtle#conservation status section could be a starter, while there are plenty of sources for organizations that focus on reptile conservation. Rauisuchian (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

OK; intro paragraph 2

Can someone please explain to me the difference between those two definitions? Because as far as I can tell, they're the same. Serendi^podous 03:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that one is a node-based definition (first common ancestor of A and B) and the other a stem-based definition (first ancestor that is not ancestor of C). They define the same living groups but may cover different fossil groups. There might be early diverging fossil reptiles that are covered by the latter (not mammals) but not the former. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Should we make that clear then? Also, shouldn't we make some kind of statement as to why this article, despite the alternative definitions, still goes by the Linnean definition? Serendi^podous 05:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this article about the clade Reptilia, or about the paraphyletic group "Reptiles"?

The article begins "Reptiles are tetrapod animals in the class or clade Reptilia". (my emphasis)

Well, if so, the article is about "Reptilia", not "Reptiles", which as popularly understood does not include birds.

The article includes a full taxonomy section and a taxobox, which says that the topic being covered is the Class Reptilia, and a phylogeny section, which says that the topic is the Clade Reptilia – which fortunately accords closely with the Class. What it does not accord with is the traditional, popular group "Reptiles", which is distinguished in people's minds from Fish, Amphibians, Birds, and Mammals.

The article's lead however also includes the paragraph (my emphasis in boldface):

"Modern non-bird reptiles inhabit all the continents except Antarctica. Several living subgroups are recognized: Testudines (turtles and tortoises), 361 species;[4][5] Rhynchocephalia (the tuatara from New Zealand), 1 species;[4][6] Squamata (lizards, snakes, and worm lizards), about 11,052 species;[4][5] and Crocodilia (crocodiles, gharials, caimans, and alligators), 27 species.[4][7]"

That seems to imply that the article is about "Reptiles, excluding birds", as it carefully details how many reptile species there are, omitting the thousands of bird species. That accords with the body of the article, which does not cover bird biology or bird relations with humans. Thus both the lead (though it contradicts itself) and the article body seem to be about the popular "Reptiles", not the clade "Reptilia".

Something is very wrong here.

The logical options are

1) to write about the Class/Clade, including Birds, and to rename the article "Reptilia". The lead section and article body then need to be rewritten to include full coverage of Birds, in at least as much detail as, say, the Crocodiles.

2) to accept the Common Name and to write about the paraphyletic "Reptiles", excluding Birds. This would mean rewriting the lead and removing the cladistics, and cutting the taxobox, taxonomy, and phylogeny, all of which apply only to the Class/Clade, not the paraphyletic group.

I guess another option (not sure if it's available) would be

3) to find a way of justifying the first sentence of the lead (quoted above), which effectively redefines "Reptiles" as "Reptilia", contrary to centuries of Common Name usage. The section Reptiles#Phylogenetics and modern definition however fails to do this; at the moment, the first sentence of the lead is therefore WP:OR – an uncited editorial opinion.

I'd say that (2) was a bit drastic, and we'd miss having proper coverage of Reptilia. We can't just say WP:COMMONNAME as that gives an inconsistent answer in this case. (3) would be attractive if possible, but common usage is persistent; people other than evolutionary biologists (and small boys in the museum's Dino gallery) do not think of birds as reptiles. If neither of those work, then (1) is what we have left, Dr. Watson, and we must rename the article to "Reptilia". Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Serendipodous, Hemiauchenia - maybe you have thoughts on this. CC.

The opening sentence is correct that "reptiles are tetrapod animals in the class or clade Reptilia". They are members of the taxon, whether using reptile to exclude birds or not. It needs qualification, something like "birds also evolved from within this class, but are not considered reptiles in the widely understood use of the common name. This article is about reptiles to the exclusion of birds".

Specifically:

1. Including birds will lead to redundancy unless its a very short section with a hatnote linking the bird article. I think the lede needs to indicate that birds are not covered in some way.
2. The common name reptile can be used broadly to include birds as well as more widely understood meaning to the exclusion of birds. So reptile is still a valid common name for Reptilia. Even if reptiles was always to the exclusion of birds the taxobox is still necessary. The taxobox is just an infobox with information on the article topic and even if taken strictly to mean an infobox on a taxon, Reptilia is still a taxon even if it has a definition making it paraphyletic. Major systems of taxonomy still use paraphyletic taxa, even though most people would prefer otherwise.
3. This has to be the approach, but the problem is finding a way that doesn't add a distraction for those wanting to read about reptiles as usually understood. It's hard to be concise and precise as accurate descriptions tend to become wordy. This also becomes difficult within Wikipedia guidelines on the lede summarising the article unless there is a short section.

The lede also states Reptilia is a paraphyletic taxon. This is incorrect. Some definitions might make it paraphyletic, but there are certainly definitions inclusive of birds. My impression is most definitions of the taxon are, although my reading might be biased to cladistic sources.

In short I think the common name title is fine (within Wikipedia restraints) as it can apply to the clade or the more widely understood common name meaning. We just need to find away of concisely explaining the position of birds and why they are covered in a different article. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Um, in that case there is WP:WEASEL-talk in the lead section. The quoted first sentence will sound to 99.99% of readers as a definition, meaning "'Reptiles' is a clade and this article will cover it". Both halves of that reasonable deduction are false: Reptiles, defined as (Reptilia - Aves) is not a clade, and the article does not cover the clade either; but the article is going to elide Reptiles with Reptilia and provide full clade-article phylogeny as if the article were covering a clade. I think that's both confusing and dishonest.

Where I can agree with you is that the lead is self-contradictory and needs rewriting. The least we can do is clean that up, it's a disgrace. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

To do that we need to settle on a definition of "reptile", which this article as a whole appears to have done, ie, the old-fashioned Linnaean definition, which is fine. The problem is we can't in all honesty declare that "reptiles are" any one thing, becuase there is at present no fixed idea of what reptiles are. Serendi^podous 18:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure I agree, but if you're right on that, then what you wrote above makes no sense, and we must immediately rename the article to Reptilia, which can at least be offered a time-series of successive definitions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be taking it as read that "reptile" means what most people think of when they think of "reptile." which as I said is fine. But we still need a source for that. And given the competing definitions of reptile among reliable sources, I don't see how we could arrive at a single definition of reptile. Serendi^podous 20:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm taking your suggestion that that's the least painful route, in the spirit of compromise. If that's not all right then, for the third time of asking, we need to rename the article to Reptilia. Then we can say directly that the article is about the class, and then we go into the issue of what clade exactly that might mean. I think that's the only intellectually honest thing to do if we're going to keep all the clade stuff and phylogeny in the article, but you keep circling around it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how it will make any difference to change the name. If we are discussing the class reptilia than that is synonymous with the standard definition of reptile. I do not know where the idea of a reptilia clade even comes from. As far as I'm aware the cladistic name for this group is sauropsida and the idea of making a reptilia clade isn't actually established. Serendi^podous 21:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Reptilia is well established under a number of definitions, e.g. Gauthier (1988, 1995), Laurin and Reisz (1995) and deBraga and Rieppel (1997). This is discussed in the The Phylogenetic Definition of Reptilia by Modesto & Anderson (2004), who discuss the problems the uncertain position of turtles was causing various definitions, especially if using a crown definition. They end up giving a stem-based (total group) definition for Reptilia which gives it the same content as Sauropsida and argue Reptilia has precedence and familiarity. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Well it will make a large difference to the article, and towards avoiding total confusion among our readership, if we give the article a defensible name rather than a non-clade that is or isn't a decent class, and which may or may not be covered in full in the article, or rather... etc etc. In short, it's a shambles as it is, and a solid, defensible name will make all the difference, as it'll give the article a definable scope, and we can then ensure that all parts of it match that scope. At the moment we have an article at war with itself.

Now, as to this new cladistic spanner you've just thrown in the works, I'd be happy with Sauropsida if that's the choice, but there actually seem to be several clades we could select in the cladogram, and Sauropsida isn't one of them, maybe you can explain why that is. The lead's facile class=clade Reptilia is simply mistaken (how long has that been there, no, don't tell me). It's plainly no good going for a class-name that doesn't work as a clade. I'm a bit astonished that we have "Reptilia" as not one but two clades in the cladogram (obviously that does sound like a bit of a problem), along with the promising-sounding "Eureptilia" (maybe we should use that...) and indeed we have the choice of Romeriida and Diapsida too. Perhaps getting the inconsistency in the cladogram sorted out would be a good start. Or if you are confident it's fine as it is (i.e. you're dropping the Sauropsida idea), then we just have to pick one of the clades in the tree to define the article's scope. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the name is fine as it is, and I am a reptile taxonomist and paleontologist, the most accurate descriptor is non-avian reptile for the group most people assume is reptiles. However if you change it most people will not understand and many will disagree, whether rightly or wrongly. I would prefer to accept the name people understand for the purposes of mainspace, and then explain the situation within the article to educate people. The higher order phylogenetics of these groups is hardly even established so its easier just to explain it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 23:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Scott, ok. I already began to move the lead in that direction. You are certainly also right that "Non-avian reptile" will not work as an article title. In that case the least we can do is

1) remove the inconsistency in the lead

2) correct the cladogram. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

A class cannot contain another class, see talk:archosaur. 2001:1308:2798:6500:E05C:23CF:2C3A:968B (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I've tried a redraft to clarify the diffrerence between "class" and "clade". Serendi^podous 12:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it a go on the lead text (item 1). It's better than it was, and perhaps slightly less slippery. The cladogram (item 2) remains an issue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Another issue

The listing under taxon claims to be following the classification in Benton's Vertebrate Palaeontology (2005, 2014). It follows neither and seems to be a synthesis from a variety of other sources. If a list is to be given, and I think a list of major groups should be there, it should follow the stated source. I can edit this to match Benton (2014). Or is there a newer classification that could be used?

I also note Benton uses Linnean ranks with a class Reptilia that includes birds, so the dichotomy between Linnean taxonomy with paraphyletic Reptilia (excluding birds) and cladistic Reptilia (including birds) as stated in the lede is inaccurate and seems to be reliant on the dated Colin Tudge quote. That section of the lede should be removed as this edit summary by Chiswick Chap suggests. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that bit's wrong, as is the cladogram. I expect it isn't following the cited source either. 2014 sounds very old given the speed of genomics and cladistics nowadays. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I've checked the cladogram against the source and, surprisingly, it follows it closely. These large cladograms are often edited beyond recognition from the originals. The changes I see are that some genera are replaced by family or other group names and one genus which is outside its group taxon omitted.

What is your problem with the cladogram? Do you think it too complicated for this general page on reptiles, in which case we could reduce some branches (e.g. don't expand Parareptilia, lump some stem taxa) or do you think the source is outdated, in which case we need another source? —  Jts1882 | talk  16:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

On my cell right now. However, considering this is a page about higher group "reptiles" you could restrict the cladogram to no higher than sub order. I would suggest following linaean groups as best as possible as they are used by all checklists and international organisations. This is unlikely to change and introducing too many terms not internationally recognised is problematic. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 16:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect information

In a bing knowledge panel provided by Wikipedia, it described reptiles as a type of bird which, of course, is not correct. 47.187.236.39 (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you tried to comprehend why the article say it? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Birds are dinosaurs

Therefor, birds are reptiles. If I could get leading experts in the field to state that for you on video would you allow conversation on the subject again?

It seems strange to have a Wikipedia edit page so biased against acknowledging this- is there anti evolution bias at play or what’s the deal?

Science changes, you should adapt your information as it does. 2600:1702:1CF0:1150:899:C22A:95FC:9E8E (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Have you tried reading beyond the introduction? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The source is also from 1994 - a time when the idea of feathered theropods was still controversial. Blatantly inaccurate and outdated information. 2605:59C8:4065:3A10:2058:4401:CC46:F25F (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstand cladistics. Birds belong to the clade of dinosaurs, yes, but that doesn't mean they "are" dinosaurs. Or reptiles. 2A02:AA7:4657:738D:E967:5237:7E5D:394B (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

But they most certainly are reptiles. "You cannot evolve out of a clade": QED birds are reptiles and humans are monkeys. Live with it :-)

The fact that birds are traditionally treated as a separate group is not a problem, but if we're talking evolutionary taxonomy we cannot say birds are not reptiles —GRM (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The issue, surely, is in the article Dinosaur which defines dinosaurs as reptiles. What is happening here is that Linnean taxonomy is fighting cladistics. Okay, this is perhaps the only, or major case in which the two diverge so markedly (Linnaeus, of course treated birds as a Class and thus of the same rank as reptiles, mammals, etc.). But as (I think) Robert Bakker said, it is time to abolish the use of 'reptile' in any discussion that bears on taxonomy, or indeed biology. the Dinosaur article would be a good place to start. Chrismorey (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Lead reads like a parody

“in common parlance, are a group of tetrapods with an ectothermic”. That is NOT common parlance! 😂 82.36.70.45 (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Tthe article means the word "reptile" as informally circumscribed by common parlance, not as defined with common parlance. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

info on birds needed

This article includes a classification of reptiles which includes birds, and yet they are notably absent from most of the sections in the article. Someone should probably go in and add information about birds to these sections. Since that classification is used, it would probably make more sense to lead with the definition of reptiles which includes birds first, and mention the alternate definition which does not in the second paragraph where the more taxonomically accurate definition currently is. 23.93.196.35 (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

That classification is mentioned, it is not used. This article uses the definition in the lead sentence. Serendi^podous 09:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, I would argue that we should use the more accurate classification, then. 204.58.180.206 (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Definition of reptiles excluding birds is outdated

Is there any actual reason that the outdated Linnean definition of reptiles is the one used in the first paragraph and through the article? Seems kind of pointless to even mention the modern definition and then just not use it. I think a fair amount of people do know that reptiles include birds, and if this article were updated then maybe even more people would. Why are we tying ourselves to an outdated definition just because some people haven't learned the current one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.225.46.187 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed —GRM (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the common English usage of reptiles and birds, where the articles are at the common names rather than the taxonomic groups. Taxonomy doesn't dictate English language, even if we'd like it too. And Wikipedia has to follow sources as a whole, not just selected taxonomy sources. The article explains the different usages. The affinity of birds with Dinosaurs was noted 150 years ago, so I wouldn't hold my breath for changes to the common name usage.  —  Jts1882 | talk  19:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Except that... there are centuries of literature referring to reptiles under the 'old' definition. It is becoming increasingly common for both popular science and non-specialist works to refer to "non-avian reptiles"—GRM (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I also agree, there should not be any CLASS of Reptilia, it should be an unranked clade instead. Jako96 (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, such sources exclude birds from reptiles, but most of the sources that use Reptilia do include the birds within it. We can also use the word reptile to refer to the group excluding birds and also use a paraphyletic group template without a paraphyletic Reptilia taxon, if that is what you want. Jako96 (talk) 10:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The Usage of Reptilia and Sauropsida in Pages' Taxoboxes

Some reptile pages use Reptilia in their taxoboxes while some pages use Sauropsida. This just isn't consistent. We need to fix that. Jako96 (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

About using the paraphyletic group template

I propose to use the paraphyletic group template instead of the automatic taxobox. Jako96 (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

What visual effects would this have? The article already acknowledges the group as paraphyletic in the second paragraph. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

It would look something like this. I mean it's a paraphyletic group, so we should use the paraphyletic group template just like other paraphyletic/polyphyletic groupings (see Fish, Wobblata, Clostridia, Agnatha, Thermoanaerobacterales). Jako96 (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Archelosauria shouldn't be there because it's a monophyletic group that includes birds by definition, and has never been defined in any other way. Kiwi Rex (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

As defined in the text, the term "reptile" encompasses four "orders". Thus, Archelosauria is there merely to show the nesting of the crocodiles and tortoises, terrapins and turtles. It does not imply the paraphyletic taxobox is invalid IMO—GRM (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I also definitely think the paraphyletic group template should be used. Seems like this is clearly more consensual right now as @Cantthinkofanyusername also supports this. @Kiwi Rex, do you also support to use the paraphyletic group template here? Apparently, it's 3 to 2 people now, so unless you don't support to use paraphyletic group, I'll restore the paraphyletic group version in the article. Jako96 (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

The subject of this page is paraphyletic group, which makes the paraphyletic taxobox template the most natural choice (the monophyletic equivalent of Reptilia has is own page with a non-ambiguous name). The extant group list should be: 1) Lepidosauria (with 2 orders), 2) Testudines, 3) Crocodilia - without links to Archelosauria and Archosauria. The real issue is whether we are keeping Class Reptilia and Class Aves at the same time. Kiwi Rex (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I think using Archelosauria here is pretty okay, since we also display Lepidosauria. I also definitely support getting rid of the paraphyletic class Reptilia and the clade Sauropsida, using an unranked clade Reptilia instead (contains superorder Lepidosauria, orders Testudines and Crocodylia and the class Aves). But I believe we have to try and get a consensus on WP:TOL for this, and not here. If you also support my proposal, we can hopefully take this to there. Jako96 (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Lepidosauria doesn't include birds. Archelosauria does, and cannot have a paraphyletic Reptilia as its parent group by definition. Doing so would create a misleading combination of two incompatible classification schemes (while Lepidosauria can exist in both because it's immune to whatever happens to birds). Kiwi Rex (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Ohhh, yes, you're right. Do you think we should get rid of the paraphyletic class Reptilia though? Jako96 (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Depends on what others think. Maybe "clade: Sauropsida" could be universally used in taxoboxes as if it were a class (but without the rank). Kiwi Rex (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Since birds are cladistically included in reptiles but traditionally excluded from reptiles, I think we should rename "Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa" to "Sauropsids that are cladistically considered reptiles but traditionally not considered reptiles", I honestly feel like "Sauropsids that are cladistically considered reptiles but traditionally not considered reptiles" is better than "Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa" Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

inaccurate numbers in asexual reproduction section

Not sure where the numbers for the sentence "Asexual reproduction has been identified in squamates in six families of lizards and one snake" came from, but there are definitely instances of asexual reproduction in more than one family of snake, including (off the top of my head) certain boas, vipers, and blind snakes. 50.225.46.187 (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Why didn't we use the paraphyletic group template for reptiles and why didn't we put birds under "Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa"?

Reptiles are a paraphyletic group, and birds are cladistically included in reptiles but traditionally excluded from reptiles Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Because showing birds in Archosauria is more informative to the reader at a glance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Contradictions are not informative in any way. The current situation is not a compromise - it's an impossibility. Birds cannot be included and excluded at the same time, and there are no extant non-avian dinosaurs to justify the inclusion of Dinosauria in the taxobox. Just list the four orders as subgroups, plus Aves as a 'tradionally excluded' descendant. This is equivalent to the polychaete taxobox including Sedentaria as a polychaete subgroup that somehow includes and excludes Clitellata at the same time. A paraphyetic group's taxobox is not the right place to describe phylogenetic relationships in detail (or tell people that birds are dinosaurs - this is already explained elsewhere). Kiwi Rex (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Reptiles
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Clade:	Sauropsida
Class:	Reptilia Laurenti, 1768
Extant groups (traditional)
Testudines (turtles) Lepidosauria Rhynchocephalia (tuatara and relatives) Squamata (lizards and snakes) Crocodilia
Extant groups (phylocode) (Reptilia Linnaeus 1758 [M. Laurin & R. R. Reisz])
Testudines (turtles) Lepidosauria Rhynchocephalia (tuatara and relatives) Squamata (lizards and snakes) Archosauria Crocodilia Dinosauria (includes Aves

The taxobox needs to be clear on whether it is on the traditional Class Reptilia Laurenti 1768, which is paraphyletic and excludes birds, or the clade Reptilia Linnaeus 1758 [M. Laurin & R. R. Reisz], which in the redefined form includes birds. If birds are to be included then the authority should be changed (Why does the phylocode definition include Linnaeus over Laurenti?).  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:02, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps both could be shown(see right).  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Linnaeus had an 'ordo Reptiles' (Laurenti simply applied the name to the whole class instead of restricting it to the subgroups with legs). However, high-ranking names are not explicitly regulated by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Having two classifications in the same taxobox is problematic; we should either list Aves as traditionally excluded or avoid a taxobox altogether; it's not really complicated. Let's not forget this page is about non-avian reptiles as a herpetological topic. The taxobox (if considered necessary) should be very simple, and the diversity of taxonomic perspectives should be discussed elsewhere in the page. Also, Dinosauria is still out of place in the phylogenetic version of the classification (why not list other clades -e.g. Archelosauria, Dinosauromorpha - then?).

Extant groups:

• Order Crocodilia
• Order Rhynchocephalia
• Order Squamata
• Order Testudines

Cladistically included but traditionally excluded:

• Aves

"Traditionally excluded" already implies there can be non-traditional perspectives that include birds in Reptilia. Kiwi Rex (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I honestly feel like "Sauropsids that are cladistically considered reptiles but traditionally not considered reptiles" is better than "Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa"

You know what? I'm gonna change "Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa" to "Sauropsids that are cladistically considered reptiles but traditionally not considered reptiles", I honestly feel like "Sauropsids that are cladistically considered reptiles but traditionally not considered reptiles" is better than "Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa", if you have anything to say, please let me know Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Since "Sauropsids that are cladistically considered reptiles but traditionally not considered reptiles" is needlessly wordy and incomprehensible to anyone not familiar with the topic, what is a better |excludes_text= can you think of for reptiles? Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Is your entire purpose on this website to complain about minutiae in the wording of paraphyletic group taxoboxes? In several months you've edited about nothing else. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be an outlet for pedants to express their grievances. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Listen, I wasn't trying to complain, I was just trying to ask a question and make a suggestion, also I don't like it when you're being rude to me Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't like you constantly editing taxoboxes about this to enforce your opinion about the issue when you haven't gained consensus for your edits, and spamming talkpages with essentially the exact same discussion topic over and over again, when you could make a single discussion post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life to have a consolidated single discussion. You can't exactly expect Wikipedia editors to be grateful for your contributions if your only interest in contributing to the encyclopedia is a very narrow interest in fiddling with taxobox wording to satisfy your own pedantry. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I didn't expect anyone to be grateful for me, I was just asking you to please stop being rude to me Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Just because you don't like what I'm doing doesn't mean you should be rude to me Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Making numerous discussions about the same topic across multiple pages is unhelpful and disrespectful of the time of other (productive) Wikipedia contributors. Go and make a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life to gain consensus for your proposed wording of paraphyletic taxoboxes. I will not respond further here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I will make a post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life, however I have to tell Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life that I don't like you being rude to me, just so you know Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Why was the Quetzalcoatlus image removed?

I don't see why it shouldn't be there, it's a reptile so it fits, maybe it was removed because it's exinct, but i don't see how that would be a problem. Nanuq22 (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2026 (UTC)