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)

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)

RfC Should the First Sentence of the Bird Article Mention Dinosaurs

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:SNOW in favour of No. The consensus is that being the surviving descendents of the dinosaurs is a remarkable and important fact about birds, but not the sort of thing that bears first mention. An argument is also made essentially in allusion toward WP:SUMMARY; i.e., there is no need to make the article less accessible by bogging the first sentence down with hyperspecific taxonomy rather than discussing it later in the lead or in the article body, and towards WP:UNDUE (while 'birds are dinosaurs' is the sort of 'wow fact' that people love to learn, it's not necessarily the single most important thing about birds.) To quote WP:NOTGUIDE as one of the No !voters did; "Introductory language in the lead (and sometimes the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic." See also MOS:LEADCLUTTER (non-admin closure) Athanelar (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

---

Should the first sentence of this article mention dinosaurs (something like "Birds are a group of warm-blooded vertebrate theropod dinosaurs...") vs. saying something like "Birds are a group of warm-blooded vertebrate animals..."? Somatochlora (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

No, the relationship between birds and dinosaurs is interesting, but is not one of the most important things that needs to be mentioned immediately vs. their relationship to other living animals which is communicated by "vertebrate", and their other basic characteristics like feathers, egg-laying, etc. There is no concise way to mention both, see the current lead sentence that uses "vertebrate theropod dinosaurs", a statement that implies there are invertebrate dinosaurs. Mentioning dinosaurs in the lead sentence is just confusing to people who may not be aware of the relationship, and is better left to a point where it can be explained, as in the current second paragraph. I am not aware of any other article on a major extant taxonomic group that mentions an otherwise extinct parent group in the first sentence, for example we don't mention synapsids in the first sentence of mammal, or batrachomorphs in the first sentence of amphibian. I don't see why this case would be any different. Somatochlora (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

No, being a dinosaur or theropod is not particularly important feature of birds. In contrast, birds being surviving dinosaurs is a much more important feature of dinosaurs, so the importance in that article is very different. Being a vertebrate or amniote or tetrapod is more significant, it tells you something important about their skeleton, their embryonic development, or their limbs. Saying they are dinosaurs isn't informative. The evolution from dinosaurs is covered in detail in the second paragraph of the lede, so the point is not being ignored, but being given with appropriate context. It doesn't need repeating in the lede, which is supposed to be summarising the whole article, and is covering the defining features of birds.  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:45, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The fact that birds are accurately defined as dinosaurs is "Not a particularly important feature of birds" and "Not informative"? Note that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, they are dinosaurs, and always have been. To substitute "animals" for "theropoda dinosaurs" is a dumbing down of Wikipedia rather than improving it. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn Wikipedia is supposed to be universally accessible. The words "theropoda dinosaurs" will be understood by a minority of people only, and explain nothing of their biology without prior knowledge of those terms. I seriously do not understand why some editors here are so hellbent on having the first sentence be the most technical yet unhelpful one. It can literally just be the second sentence. Quick example: "Birds are egg-laying animals with feathers and hard beaks, most of which are capable of flying. Birds are the only living group of dinosaurs; in particular, they evolved within theropod dinosaurs." There, it's that easy. Breathing space is good.

If you still disagree, go ahead and propose to change the first sentence at Animal with "Animals are opisthokont holozoans." That will be amusing — Snoteleks (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Just to get ahead of this, I don't believe this should be the second sentence either. The current structure with the second paragraph entirely about the evolutionary history of birds makes perfect sense.

For some proper context, the current structure of the lead, except without the mention of dinosaurs in the first sentence, was the consensus result of an extensive discussion in January 2020. It was changed to mention dinosaurs in the first sentence in October 2025 with no discussion or edit summary, and has been reverted twice since then. Despite this, Randy is claiming that the current version is "stable and long-term", and that this RFC is required to revert to the previous consensus. I hope we do not have to immediately have another discussion about putting it in the *second* sentence after this RFC is closed. Clearly most editors think it's perfectly fine to have it in the second paragraph. Somatochlora (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@Somatochlora I agree. Same as in Animal and Protist, each paragraph of the lead should be dedicated to a different topic, evolution is a good topic for the second or third paragraph. A different order does not imply any "dumbing down", it is simply improved reading flow. — Snoteleks (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the sentence putting the dinosaur fact in the lede is a nice balance since many non-avian dinosaurs had beaks and feathers and could fly(in this sense I will be more generous that bird means avialan for this sense) SlopeInterceptor^Talk 06:10, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

many non-avian dinosaurs had beaks and feathers and could fly – I find this interesting because I've read that back during the long periods of dinosaur existence, dinosaurs are believed to have only existed as "land animals". The aquatic and flying monsters of those times were considered "reptiles", but not "dinosaurs". Has this also changed along with the usage of the "robust" clade (dinos) to be equated with classes (such as mammals)? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 07:01, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

You're thinking of Pterosaurs and various groups of marine reptiles (including Mosasaurs, Ichthyosaurs and Plesiosaurs). Various dinosaurs close to birds are now hypothesised to have been capable of at the very least a gliding-type flight, and some of powered flight. Mostly depends on what you want to call a bird and not (see: Enantiornithes). Others have also been found to probably have preferred aquatic habitats, like Spinosaurus. The Morrison Man (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Pterosaurs, Mosasaurs, and so on. I had recently read that Spino might be more aquatic than not, but the writer was careful to note that this was probably more in lakes and rivers rather than the seas. You have me wondering now about the Aves timeline and how it may have overlapped with dinos. I must do some more reading. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 10:41, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

No: I agree, "warm-blooded vertebrate animal" accomplishes a basic description more in line with Wikipedia's goals, in my opinion. Per Item #7 in WP:NOTGUIDE, I think opening with the theropod dinosaur classification has the potential to confuse a lay reader and, to quote the link above: "Introductory language in the lead (and sometimes the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic."

As cool as it is that birds are dinosaurs, I agree with Somatochlora that this is better addressed in the article, rather than stated in the lead where there isn't adequate space to explain it. For a non-taxonomist, dinosaurs are Tyrannosaurs and Sauropods. DuckWrangler97 (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

No; the description of birds as being dinosaurs is surprising enough that it should be accompanied by an explanation, as it is in the second paragraph. Sesquilinear (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

That's what the second paragraph does well, but it should not be an excuse to remove the accurate and stable first sentence mention. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Strong Yes, keep the correct present wording which reads: "Birds are a group of warm-blooded vertebrate theropoda dinosaurs constituting the class Aves, characterised by feathers,...". which covers all the bases. Substituting 'animals' for the stable and long-term "theropeda dinosaurs", simply removing the name of the animal and saying 'animals', falls squarely within "I don't like it". As for the often repeated reasoning (used by several of the above comments) "it will surprise people" or "it confuses readers", well, please realize that this is an encyclopedia where accuracy counts. The stable version was present for months, and none of our readers needed therapy from the shock of discovering that dinosaurs not only roam the Earth, but peck at it, fly above and reign over it, often imitate human speech, and presents the encyclopedic fact that dinosaurs live among humans and have divided into over 11,000 individual adapting and thriving living species. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

No, being a dinosaur or theropod is not a particularly important feature of birds.

What Jts1882 said. - Kweetal nl (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Please see the first sentence of Feathered dinosaurs: "A feathered dinosaur is any species of dinosaur possessing feathers, including all species of birds." Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Thank God and Wales that numerical opposition does not take the cake over sourced accuracy in this encyclopedia, even if it ends up one against many. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

No - from an editorial and structural point of view, not because it's an inappropriate taxonomic level to mention in the first sentence (I have no firm opinion on that). I feel that it's pretty clear that the wish to drop the dinosaur connection on the first opportunity is based on a desire to startle the reader - "hey, you sure weren't aware of that, huh?" Or, more gently, the desire to make that cool special fact stand out at the earliest opportunity. That is not the structure of an encyclopedic article. We start broad with the most salient facts to give the reader a basis, then add on extra material for them to slot in as reading proceeds. We don't start with the equivalent of an excited little wiggle because this one facet is so neat. The fast-track dinosaur is not as jarring as it was at bee hummingbird, where it really felt like a derailment, but neither is it beneficial to the article structure. Second paragraph treatment is just fine. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:11, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

No. The first sentence of "Bird" should define birds in clear, reader-facing terms, not foreground a cladistic point that most readers will need explained. "Vertebrate animal" does that job; "dinosaur" is better handled in the second paragraph, where it can be given context instead of creating clunky wording and repetition in the lead. Esculenta (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

No - Birds being descended from dinosaurs is more a of piece of historical trivia than something that should be in the lede. Lulfas (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

No. I once asked a scientist why he believed "birds are dinosaurs", and he equated dinosaurs (clade) with mammals (class), which is BS in my book. Humans are mammals, so birds are dinosaurs? No. And hopefully soon, science will retract such BS. Dinosaurs, all dinosaurs, are extinct and have been extinct for about 65 million years. Humans evolved from the little rodent-like mammals that skittered around the toes of dinos. Birds evolved from avian dinos. Birds are no more dinos than humans are mice. I'm hopeful that science will correct this soon. In the meantime, the equating of birds and dinos is unimportant, disingenuous and disrespectful to all birds, both extant and extinct. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 18:44, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

"Birds are no more dinos than humans are mice." I'm afraid this comparison is flawed. Birds are within the clade Dinosauria, but humans are not within Rodentia! The Morrison Man (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The clade Dinosauria is within the class Reptilia. Are birds also reptiles? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 23:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Birds evolved from earlier theropods, and thus constitute the only known living dinosaurs. Likewise, birds are considered reptiles in the modern cladistic sense of the term, and their closest living relatives are the crocodilians. So yes. Sesquilinear (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, editors The Morrison Man and Sesquilinear, may we agree to disagree? If we were to use that same argument, we find that the rodent connection to humans goes up to the magorder Boreoeutheria. So by the same (flawed) argument, humans are indeed mice. And that's as atrocious a statement as "birds are dinosaurs"! As close as is the connection of birds to their ancestors, we must keep with the heretofore long-accepted concept that dinosaurs, to include all dino species, are emphatically... extinct. Those lovely flyers in modern skies are just birds, as you and I are just human beings. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 08:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me that you fundamentally misunderstand how modern cladistics works. Humans did not evolve from mice. Rodents and humans both belong to boreoeutheria and mammalia, but humans are not classed under Rodentia. Maybe the taxobox at Euarchontoglires can help clear this up. Birds, by virtue of evolving directly from theropod dinosaurs, ARE dinosaurs. The Morrison Man (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

In the most reliable taxonomic sources, words like "dinosaur" are usually going to be defined cladistically, because those are usually the most biologically sound categories. Whether this definition is the one meant in lay usage of the word "dinosaur" is arguable; I think a lot of people use it to include birds nowadays even in everyday life, but not universally.

I think for a case where a cladistic definition is at odds with lay usage, the standard one I've heard is that humans would be considered fish if the term fish were ever used cladistically. Sesquilinear (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes - but humans would not be remarkable in this regard, because ALL tetrapods would be classed as lobe-finned fish, not just humans. But birds are the ONLY living animals that may bear the dinosaur designation. ~2026-22864-37 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

No. Whether or not birds are considered "dinosaurs" (something that may or may not reflect reliable sources), this is not so significant a fact about birds that it needs to be in the lead sentence. Per MOS:FIRST, the first sentence "should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English." The existing version is in conflict with this guideline. Katzrockso (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

No - while the lead should display the fact birds are dinosaurs unambiguously, I cannot frankly say even as a WP:PALEO editor that I believe their exact place within the vertebrate tree of life is of such importance that it should be in the first sentence. I think it is much as how the article Elephant does not open by calling them proboscideans but rather with Elephants are the largest living land animals - for such a fundamental aspect of biology as the idea of a "bird", in the face of everything one could say about them, I do not think their place as dinosaurs can be considered lead sentence material, though is it certainly of importance to the lead as a whole. It is adequately covered in the dedicated second paragraph and taxobox. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:56, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the category of "dinosaur" is just a bit more notable than the category of "proboscidean". Very nearly every person on the planet is familiar with dinosaurs, while next to no layperson has heard of a proboscidean. And this does matter when deciding what gets prominence in an encyclopedia. ~2026-22864-37 (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Weak yes. I think that it should be cut down to "warm-blooded dinosaurs" removing the reference to Theropoda because that part is not as notable or useful to readers, but dinosaur versus reptile versus animal is subjective and I like "dinosaur" for no reason other than it is the best of what is in my mind a poorly-formed lead sentence anyways. I feel like things other than taxonomy (classification) and nomenclature (rank and name) should take priority, but if we are keeping the current structure I think "warm-blooded dinosaurs" is accurate and succinct. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

No, while the bird dinosaur relationship is the classic example of the push for monophyly in speech, therapod dinosaurs are just one of many clades which encompass Aves and don't define birds more than the others. The standard major taxonomic ranks should be used for simplicity and accessibility. (Likely in the infobox as well.) CMD (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

No: see MOS:LEADCLUTTER. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 08:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

No (Summoned by bot): Birds are dinosaurs and that's very cool and I rather like describing them as dinosaurs in the first sentence, but I don't think I can justify it. Its inclusion in the first sentence is fun for people who already know this fact but I suspect it's not so helpful for people who don't. The second paragraph does a good job of explaining that birds are dinosaurs. Guided by MOS:LEADCLUTTER (Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead) I think the first sentence should use more generic words such as "vertebrate" and "animal", and the dinosaur discussion should be left for the second paragraph. Mgp28 (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

No: Not in the lead. Further down in a taxonomy section? Yes. Birds are more dinosaurs than I am a fish, but neither of those belong in the lead of articles about birds or humans. Dolphins are descended from fish too, but we wouldn't call them fish because there are more relevant things to include. SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

No. The first sentence should IMO be shortened, possibly even as short as: "Birds are animals with feathers, toothless beaked jaws, the laying of hard-shelled eggs..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

No. The very first sentence should always be the most universally approachable one, not the most scientifically exhaustive one. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I was on the fence on this question, until I started reading the other responses, their very bad arguments, and everyone jumping like a hive mind. Also there is a very strange tendency to analyse every single case in a uniform, detache manner and a one size fits all approach. As if collective human consciousness should play zero role in determining what gets written about promonently. E.g., "birds are members of many other clades". To that I all, and HOW many of those clades are as perpervasive in the popular imagination as dinosaurs are? As an aside, I also think that the classification of dinos as reptiles warrants reexamining, too, since evidence is increasingly pointing to them being more "birdlike" than "lizardlike"; but that's not WP's scope. ~2026-22864-37 (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I'm on the fence. I lean no per Katzrockso. Both Merriam-Webster and Oxford English Dictionary define dinosaur as referring to extinct reptiles. If the scientific defintion includes current birds that seems like a lot of heavy lifting for the first sentence to bridge the gap for most readers. (Summoned by bot) Dw31415 (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment for other editors and the closer. Please note that many, if not most, of the nay "voters" point to the fact that this encyclopedic fact will greatly shock readers, then note that this stable language has been in the lead long-term and we've had no reports of it causing psychosis or the heebie-jeebies to any reader. They present a false argument which has nothing to do with encyclopedic knowledge and its presentation. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think describing "this is surprising if you are used to «dinosaurs» meaning exclusively extinct animals, so it's better to describe it along with Cladistics 101" as "this will shock readers into psychosis" is a straw man. Sesquilinear (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Randy Kryn I think, for the most part, individuals engaging in this RfC have been cordial, and cited relevant Wikipedia guidelines and/or precedent to support their opinions. I am assuming you haven't meant to come across as such, but several of your comments have read to me as rather condescending, which undermines the position you're supporting.

  From my read of your stated opinions, one of the primary arguments you have for keeping the dinosaur language in the first sentence is that it is a "stable version" of the lead. That said, when examined, clearly other editors disagree, and find this language is inappropriate for the first sentence -- see all the comments above. Wikipedia readers aren't presented with a survey after each article which asks, "Was the language in this article understandable and clear?"

  It's our job to anticipate and correct those problems. As an ornithologist with nearly ten years experience interfacing with the public about birds, I can attest that the fact birds are taxonomically dinosaurs is regarded by most audiences as fun trivia at best, and a needless technicality in most cases. DuckWrangler97 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Randy's just being Randy, a truly good soul. Even those of us who find it repulsive to equate modern birds with dinos are, I think for the most part, truly fascinated by the research that uncovered this evolutionary connection. While I think it's wrong to equate a clade (dinos) with a class (mammals), and that birds are still in a class of their own (aves), I must acknowledge the deep thinking and reconstruction that went into this great discovery. As outspoken as I am, I'm also humbled by the science. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I will note that even the unreasonably high bar "nobody has complained that this is confusing" has been surpassed here. There are at least two cases of people coming to this talk page because they were confused by previous versions of the lead referring to birds as dinosaurs without appropriate contextualization. See Talk:Bird/Archive 8 under the headings "a layman's opinion" and "is the link between birds and dinosaurs a recent discovery?". I can't imagine there are very many things on Wikipedia that are so confusing that multiple readers have come to the talk page to complain. Somatochlora (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

No. The opening sentence is overly dense and verbose and the inclusion of "dinosaur" is more likely to disorient than to inform. No one is arguing that the statement is incorrect nor that we should hide this fact. Introducing this elsewhere in the lead will increase understanding without making the opening sentence any less accurate. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

No CMD nailed it with his comment. Birds are dinosaurs, but they are also animals, amniotes, vertabrates, chordates etc. Their status as the only living lineages should be in the overall lead, I would argue that animal is the most important of the clades to be mentioned in the first sentence. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:57, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• A pertinent question for the "no" editors. Let's say that all mammals died along with all the dinosaurs (including birds) millions of years ago in an asteroid fall and its deadly aftermath. Every mammal, gone. Museum pieces. Except for squirrels. And in those millions of years squirrels not only thrived but are everywhere, not just a handful of squirrel species but over 11,000! In an encyclopedia article would the fact that squirrels are the only living mammals be a defining characteristic and first paragraph worthy? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  The other Mammaliaformes are all dead. The other Cynodonts are all dead. Every living taxa is a tenuous survivor whose existence overshadows a vast sea of extinctions. CMD (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, and true, although other survivors have all been divided into various and widely-separated animals (from whales to mice). But still not answered: "If squirrels were the one and only living mammal tens-of-millions of years after an extinction event would that fact be defining enough to include in their lead paragraph". I think this example is unarguable, and that it would be defining (I can't think of how it would not be, hence my sorry-to-be-exhausting defense of a first paragraph placement on this page). I must credit the nominator with inspiring this example on their talk page, where I've gotten a good talking to that makes me realize that I've been lumping all past discussions of this topic into one and apologize for any condescending remarks here. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I meant to answer by mention of mammals. Squirrels are a family; call them equivalent to ducks. The squirrel Class of mammals was also devastated by the K-Pg extinction, and also subsequently diversified to cover most of the world. Perhaps 75% of species died during the K-Pg event, everything that exists today descended from the last surviving X tens-of-millions of years after that event. CMD (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  We don't have to engage in thought experiments. The arguments are based on actual usage in the here and now with the goal of clearly describing the topic to flesh and blood, English-speaking humans in AD 2026. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  This thought experiment capsulizes why I am persistent in this topic, from what I experience as a commonsense perspective. What I have forgotten in this discussion is a good dose of 'Assume good faith', that other editors have the point of view that this is not a major defining characteristic of birds, which I frankly cannot understand. The thought experiment communicates this. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  other editors have the point of view that this is not a major defining characteristic of birds "No" editors have consistently stated the opposite view. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Okay, good point, thanks. I probably view all major defining characteristics (unlike normal, average, or minor defining characteristics) as first paragraph worthy, and maybe based on the journalism adage of not burying the lead. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  First paragraph, sure. Placing this outside the very first sentence gives the statement room to breathe and I think can actually elevates it by making the opening more accessible and singling this out as a distinct fact and not part of the laundry list of more familiar characteristics. Moving this also helps us address MOS:SOB and MOS:NOFORCELINK problem by breaking up the string warm-blooded vertebrate theropod dinosaurs that currently kicks off the article. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Another reason that I dislike calling birds dinosaurs is the present and past usage of "dinosaur" to refer to something or someone that's outdated, for all practical purposes, "extinct". "That old car? It's a real dinosaur," or "The CEO of our company is a dinosaur," both meaning that the subjects are outdated and useless. Birds are not outdated and useless, nor are they extinct, but that's what I think of whenever someone says or writes "birds are dinosaurs". I'm not the only one. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 13:05, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

The thought experimnent needs more qualifiers to be useful. In the hypothetical world you discuss - what was the historical context of the discovery of the mammals? Were squirrels always assumed to be mammals, or was that knowledge the result of many years of debate and a long period where mammals were known (and culturally significant) and squirrels were known but the two were not understood to be related? Besides, we don't need a thought experiment. We know birds are dinosaurs, we also know that they are vertebrates, chordates, animals, eucaryotes etc. Is the prominence given to dinosaurs in that list of important cladesby yes advocates, is it because they are the most important clade, or is it because of the relatively recent confirmation of their placement there? Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Only extant mammal

To equate the situation within a thought experiment Sabine's Sunbird, no, squirrels were thought to be their own type of animal until it was proven a few decades ago that they were, to the surprise of the scientific community, mammals! The only mammals left on Earth. All mammals were thought extinct, but now squirrels are recognized as successful mammals who populate the planet with over 11,000 species. Many other vertebrates exist, although still worthy of mention, and there are other animals etc., but the only living mammals are recognizd as having always been a fixture within society who have adapted to living among whatever animal it is that has evolved enough to write encyclopedias. The descriptor "only living mammals" thus becomes defining for the first paragraph of the squirrel article. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I would have no problem at all with using "only living mammals" in the first sentence in this idea crunch. However, mammal denotes a "class" of animals just like aves is a class. Dinos are a mere "clade", and should not be equated with a class, not in thought, and not in reality. Birds are far from obsolete (dinosaurs), about as far as humans are from those little mammals (one of which is our ancestor) that skittered around the toes of those terrible lizards! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 13:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

mammal denotes a "class" of animals just like aves is a class. Dinos are a mere "clade", and should not be equated with a class say you dont understand the current ground state of taxonomy & phylogeny semantics without saying you don't understand the state. Clade is a more robust and accepted grouping in modern usage than Linnaean hierarchical ranking.--Kevmin § 15:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

So it seems that there is a lot of support from experts in cladistics for clades, or at least one clade, as robust enough to apply to a modern class (birds). Nor does it appear that this will be changed any time soon. Modern classification does still include much that is Linnaean, as well as much that is cladistics. It's all subjective human perception and construction, with which in the case of birds as dinos I humbly disagree and, therefore, gladly reduce my obviously unwanted and subjective input. Thank you very much for your excellent work to justify the present description! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 18:34, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Despite the logic behind cladistics being sound it is not what the average reader is familiar with and thus not what is the most identifiable aspect of something like birds.^{and cladistics are still Linnean if you ask me, you're just doing the categorizing using more accurate information than what was previously accessible} ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 06:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I feel like this thought experiment is incomplete without a description of how or whether whatever post-apocalyptic cockroach society has arisen from the mass extinction event is relating their taxonomical classifications to ours. Sesquilinear (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not especially illuminating because the birds–dinosaurs question concerns all the relevant facts about this particular classification. If everything is the same but we're just swapping bird, dinosaur, human, English, and Wikipedia with squirrel, mammal, and the alternate-universe equivalent to humans, English, and Wikipedia, then the arguments will be exactly the same. If the hypothetical realities are quite different then the approach to writing the article should be, too. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I honestly think this hypothetical scenario has dragged on beyond its usefulness, because at this point its just a game of nameswapping and doesn't actually bring anything to the table on why we should or should not keep the dinosaurs mention in the first sentence. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

This shows that if the 11,000 plus species of squirrels were the only survivors in the famous extinction of mammals 66 millions years ago, that fact would likely be first-paragraph worthy. That is, if anyone would actually answer the posed question. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Which brings us no further in this discussion, where nearly all editors seem to agree that, while noteworthy, the fact that birds are dinosaurs is not something for the first sentence of the article. Ignoring the fact that the current first sentence already makes little sense (as "vertebrate theropod dinosaurs" might be one of the most redundant uses of vertebrate I've read in a while), so far you have argued that the current state is both long-term and stable, which others have shown to be a questionable assessment, and that "accuracy counts". This is a weird one for me, because "birds are warm-blooded animals" and "birds are warm-blooded vertebrate theropod dinosaurs" are accurate statements. It doesn't read to me like anyone here, or at least the majority of editors who think removing it from the first sentence is the best course of action, want the mention of birds' ancestry to be removed entirely from the lede, just for it to be covered in a more fitting place in the second paragraph, which already opens with "Birds evolved from earlier theropods". By all accounts, introducing the fact that they are dinosaurs here (in the second paragraph, for clarification) is more accesible to the layman reader. The Morrison Man (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

It was never useful to begin with. Otherwise, I agree with everything you've said. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

No. It's awkward and unnecessary to jam "dinosaur" into the first sentence. Even if it's technically accurate in some respects, it's a fact that benefits from explanation and it's better introduced later in the lead more clearly and with more context. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

No - this is a pretty tiresome debate - agree with all the reasons by naysayers above - newspaper-style sensationalism can be done away with, after all - we do not introduce mammals as the only surviving synapsids and so on - using stem group names to shock-educate people who know only crown groups is not an important activity in the wider view of evolutionary-biology education. Shyamal (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chickens

can someone add a photo of a chicken or rooster whatever in there it feels incomplete without it LeatheryUma (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

FWIW there’a a small pic of a chicken (more precisely the wild ancestor thereof) representing the Galliformes in the classification tree.—Odysseus1479 23:08, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

ZW sex-determination

I noticed that there was no mention of this form of sex-determination. Is this worthy of mentioning that all birds sex is determined by ZW chromosomes in this article?

The Unapologetic Spagetii (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the section Bird § Reproductive system (second paragraph of that section). Was there something specific you would like to add beyond that? Mgp28 (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I did not see that part of the article. Sorry! After reading it I think that clarifying that the egg cell determines the sex of the offspring, opposed to the XY system where the sperm determines the sex, would be useful. But that might be a little bit redundant because that clarification is already in the ZW sex-determination system article. What do you think would be the most appropriate action? The Unapologetic Spagetii (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

You're now very free to edit the article. If you want to add a sentence expanding on what ZW sex determination means then I think that sounds reasonable. Mgp28 (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Done. The Unapologetic Spagetii (talk) 16:35, 25 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)