This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Reptile article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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)
Can someone please explain to me the difference between those two definitions? Because as far as I can tell, they're the same. Serendi pod ous 03:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
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):
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
I guess another option (not sure if it's available) would be
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.
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 pod ous 21:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I've tried a redraft to clarify the diffrerence between "class" and "clade". Serendi pod ous 12:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
“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)
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)
Structure of mammalian heart 102.147.207.3 ( talk) 20:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Reptile article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() |
|
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)
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)
Can someone please explain to me the difference between those two definitions? Because as far as I can tell, they're the same. Serendi pod ous 03:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
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):
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
I guess another option (not sure if it's available) would be
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.
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 pod ous 21:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I've tried a redraft to clarify the diffrerence between "class" and "clade". Serendi pod ous 12:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
“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)
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)
Structure of mammalian heart 102.147.207.3 ( talk) 20:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)