Talk:Reptile

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conservation section 

message: Can someone please explain to me the difference between those two definitions? Because as far as I can tell, they're the same. Serendipodous 03:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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? Serendipodous 05:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK; intro paragraph 2 

message: 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)
replies: text: Have you tried to comprehend why the article say it? (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect information 

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

text: 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 Blatantly inaccurate and outdated information. 2605:59C8:4065:3A10:2058:4401:CC46:F25F (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birds are dinosaurs 

message: “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)
thread_title:  Lead reads like a parody 

message: 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)
replies: text: That classification is mentioned, it is not used. This article uses the definition in the lead sentence. Serendipodous 09:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  info on birds needed 

message: Structure of mammalian heart 102.147.207.3 (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biology studies