Category talk:Birds of Australia

Subcategories for bird groups?
Simpson & Day list over 800 species of Australian birds (824 if I added them up correctly), so it might not be practical to get every one listed in this category.

I'm thinking about creating subcategories for bird groups that have particular interest for readers, e.g. Category:Australian birds of prey or Category:Australian parrots. Alternately, they could be called Category:Birds of prey of Australia, Category:Parrots of Australia, etc., but you can see this naming could be clumsy in some cases. Maybe Category:Raptors of Australia rather than "birds of prey of Australia".

I may even be bold and just do it. But I'd be interested to heard feedback on how people feel about this. Useful feature? Support or oppose?

P.S. I just noticed the banner warning that says "Talk pages in this namespace are generally not watched by many users", so I might cross-post this to the wikiproject.

Pelagic (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

from a purely genealogical outlook then YES, birds are indisputably dinosaurs... however, given they have evolved and developed such contrasted physiological aspects compared to "other" dinosaurs, might these not rightfully constitute a different separate family of their own? nb. animal clades are not always defined according to purely genealogical or dare I even say scientific criteria (e.g. what precisely defines an 'antilope' ? exactly how many species are included ? etc.; the answer can differ according to more subjective interpretations); nonetheless, assuming that both ways are correct, then I have no objection towards keeping "birds of Australia" under "dinosaurs of Australia.". --Couiros22 (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. Dinosaurs surround us every day! Wikipedia's Bird article's first words are "Birds, also known as Aves or avian dinosaurs..." Thanks for not objecting, and for your work on bird pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)