User talk:Snoteleks

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.

Welcome!

The article Diaphoretickes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Diaphoretickes for comments about the article, and Talk:Diaphoretickes/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I need your help: In the Asgard archaea page, you see the phylogeny with the Eukaryota, right? For that phylogeny, I tried to show "Ca. Heimdallarchaeia" as paraphyletic (it contains the orders "Ca. Wenzhongarchaeales," "Ca. Hodarchaeales", "Ca. Gerdarchaeales" and "Ca. Heimdallarchaeales" using the |grouplabelN= feature, but it didn't work. When I try it, the "Ca. Heimdallarchaeia" doesn't appear as containing the order "Ca. Hodarchaeales". Can you do it for me? Jako96 (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 Yes, I can help. What's the reference for the cladogram exactly? — Snoteleks (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! That's the reference about "Ca. Heimdallarchaeia" for the cladogram. Jako96 (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 I don't understand, you said Heimdallarchaeia is paraphyletic but in figure 3 it's monophyletic, am I missing something? — Snoteleks (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Check extended data fig. 5a. It's at the bottom of the page. Jako96 (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 If I understand correctly, you want the bottom part of the left hand cladogram to look like this:

Peter coxhead (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes! But I'd prefer green. Also, I'd want a wikilink on "Ca. Heimdallarchaeia". Jako96 (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead @Snoteleks So, will you do this for me? As I said I couldn't do it, for some reason everytime I try the "Hodarchaeales" gets excluded. Jako96 (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the delay, I have had some troubling weeks. Let me know if the new edit is satisfactory @Jako96. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I did some changes too. Jako96 (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

By the way, what I meant in this edit's summary is that in the left phylogeny, if taxa's subgroups are not shown then that means that either they are monotypic or don't have any subgroups. For example "Heimdallarchaeales" order is not monotypic, it contains two families and they should be shown, just like the articles cited for the phylogeny. Jako96 (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Podiata is monophyletic with solid support, and you also used it in your cladogram collection. Do you think we should add this clade to the automated taxobox system? Jako96 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 I think so, yes, especially after the Torruella et al. 2025 paper (doi:10.1016/j.cub.2024.10.075). — Snoteleks (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Nice! Then, can you support me in this discussion? Jako96 (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, does Adl et al. themselves say that they only use taxa with formal description? If so, we can just rank their diatom "-phytina" clades as subphyla. Jako96 (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 We should not make such decisions until there's a solid, cohesive ochrophyte classification. Chrysista and Diatomista can be interpreted as subphyla themselves, too. There is just not enough consensus of anything for us to decide on any ranks for ochrophyte clades. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I just found this: Adl et al. states that their taxonomy follows ICN in their article. See Acknowledgments section. They say "This revision reflects numerous advances in the phylogeny of the diatoms over the last decade. Due to our poor taxon sampling outside of the Mediophyceae and pennate diatoms, and the known and anticipated diversity of all diatoms, many clades appear at a high classification level (and the higher level classification is rather flat). Nomenclature follows the botanical code (ICN). Some of the basal nodes will probably become better resolved in the future, and would permit additional subdivisions. The genera are provided as examples only, and are far from complete lists." That means we should use subphyla and classes for their clades. This would not be OR. I think we should make such a decision because this is the way that Adl et al. proposed these taxa. Jako96 (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 None of the eukaryotic codes of nomenclature regulate ranks above family. All the ICN has are provisions, recommendations, etc. and, since Adl et al. does not explicitly use ranks for these (and in fact, Sina Adl himself does not believe ranks should match the suffixes), we cannot in good faith assume taxon rank off of the name suffix. We can however assume they are simply clades. This is also beneficial for another reason: it does not conflict with previous classifications where Diatomista is explicitly described as an infra- or subphylum and Ochrophyta as a phylum. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your answer. Also, what do you think about using the class Raphidophyceae instead of the subclass Raphidophycidae? We would just use an unranked Raphopoda instead of subclass. Jako96 (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 It is true that now consensus points towards Raphidophyceae being a class independent from actinophryids. Raphopoda comes from an older hypothesis where actinophryids plus Commation (Raphopoda) are the sister group to Raphidophyceae (Raphidophycidae), together forming Raphidomonadea. This hypothesis was only supported by T. Cavalier-Smith and his team, and it's more and more disproven each year. Ideally, Raphidophyceae should be the child of Chrysista in our taxobox system, and both Raphopoda and Raphidomonadea should be stated as obsolete taxa. However, Raphopoda should remain as a subclass, not a clade, since it was never proven to be a clade. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Snoteleks! I noticed you've got an impressive 14 good articles, quite a feat. We’re currently in the middle of a review backlog drive, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to help a hand. You’ve already reviewed a few articles (thank you!), and if you’re willing to take on a few more, it would really help keep the process moving, especially given how many people helped review your nominations. Thanks in advance! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Femke I was actually considering doing that, thanks for the reminder. I have been too busy for wikipedia lately but as soon as I get back I will try to do some reviews myself. — Snoteleks (talk) 07:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

How should we classify Neocalyptrella that is in the family Rhizosoleniaceae? It's not mentioned in Adl et al., and Rhizosolenia from the family Rhizosoleniaceae is moved to the new Rhizosoleniophytina in their classification. Jako96 (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 A recent analysis from 2021 places Neocalyptrella as incertae sedis within the Mediophyceae class. Unfortunately there is a lot of missing phylogenetic information for diatoms. — Snoteleks (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

You're right. Adl et al. moved a lot of genera like this from one higher taxon to another. How should all these higher taxa's genera classified? We could just classify the remaining genera within them, but not sure. Jako96 (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 It's a disorganized mess, we will have to search on a case by case basis for each genus in the literature. I did some searching and it seems that Rhizosoleniophytina is accepted as monotypic down to the family level: two other sources claim it only has one class Rhizosoleniophyceae, one order Rhizosoleniales, one family Rhizosoleniaceae, which includes several genera (, ). I'll try to update the Protist classification accordingly. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Nice! Other sources also agree on ranking Adl et al.'s new diatom clades. I found a lot of other sources such as: https://doi.org/10.3390/d16110690, https://micronesica.org/sites/default/files/lobbanwitkowski2023.pdf, https://doi.org/10.3390/d17010034 and https://theses.hal.science/tel-04496021/. I just couldn't find a source that ranks the taxa Leptocylindrophytina, Leptocylindrophyceae and Corethrophyceae. By the way, could you check this source for me if you have access to it? It may be ranking Leptocylindrophyceae and Corethrophyceae according to my Google Scholar results. Jako96 (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 I do have access to that ref, I couldn't find any classification, there's only mentions of Leptocylindrophyceae and Corethrophyceae in image captions. I can email it to you if you want — Snoteleks (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

So they don't mention a rank, okay. Thanks, you don't have to send it to me, then. By the way, I updated Rhizosoleniophytina's taxonomy accordingly for taxonomy templates. Jako96 (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 Wonderful. But why is there a speedy deletion tag at Rhizosoleniophytina? — Snoteleks (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't create an article for Rhizosoleniophytina, I just added taxonomy templates. However, I did create a redirect at Rhizosoleniophytina that redirected to Rhizosoleniophycidae, but that page's taxonomy was obsolete, so I requested a speedy deletion. Jako96 (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

You shouldn't have created that redirect again, because the order Rhizosoleniales also contains the family Pyxillaceae. Jako96 (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 Seriously? Jeez... I'll do more searching. Thanks for telling me — Snoteleks (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

No problem, you're welcome. And now, you should request a speedy deletion. Jako96 (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I redirected it to Rhizosoleniophycidae because they are synonyms, but I do think that you should still request a speedy deletion. If you don't want that, I can just create a stub article. Jako96 (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

This article is also by Park et al., the same authors who mentioned Rhizosoleniophytina in their paper. In this paper, they use the subphylum Melosirophytina and add some taxa to it, but they also used a subclass Melosirophycidae that doesn't belong to any class. Should we use it? By the way, they also did this one time in their paper that mentioned Rhizosoleniophytina, but they also used the class Rhizosoleniophyceae in that paper. Jako96 (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 Frankly no idea. I can find no paper where there's a Melosirophyceae class, so I think we are going to be left without a class-level taxon for these organisms for now. Adl et al. must have preemptively set a taxon above class, expecting that others will take responsibility for developing the lower classification, but nobody has yet. I hope it's not for very long, because Melosirales is polyphyletic as seen here doi:10.1073/pnas.2500153122, so taxonomists should fix it soon. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that paper. Then, we should not follow Park et al.'s Melosirophytina paper because Adl et al.'s Melosirophytina is already monophyletic. You preferred Adl et al.'s classification because of cladistics, right? Jako96 (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Wait, if we are gonna countinue this way, then we should use it, because Rhizosoleniales is also polyphyletic. Jako96 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

They also use the subclass Rhizosoleniophycidae instead of the class Rhizosoleniophyceae in that paper, so we should also do that as that paper is more recent of theirs. So, what do you think? Jako96 (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 Yes I agree. We should explain somewhere that there is no class described yet, and that authors use the preexisting subclass instead until a class is described. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I updated some more templates. Can you check these papers for me to see if there are classifications in them? https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-65712-6_5 and https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39212-3_2. Jako96 (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 Both sources only discuss diatom classification at a very superficial level. The first one (which is the same book you linked earlier) goes on to say just one paragraph about it, saying: Diatom classification is still under discussion. The classification of Round et al. (1990) regarded the diatoms as a phylum (Bacillariophyta) which they split into three classes, Coscinodiscophyceae, Fragilariophyceae, and Bacillariophyceae. These classes are readily identifiable by their cellular and valve organization (Mann et al. 2017). The Fragilariophyceae (araphid pennates) and Bacillariophyceae (raphid pennates) together comprised the pennate diatoms, the Coscinodiscophyceae comprised more or less all the centric diatoms. Several modern textbooks still follow that classification, e.g. Graham et al. (2016). Unfortunately, the system of Round et al. (1990) cannot be kept anymore as the two classes Fragilariophyceae and Coscinodiscophyceae were found paraphyletic in molecular systematics, and, therefore, the three-class system apparently does not capture the essential features of diatom evolution (Mann et al. 2017). Despite subsequent suggestions for diatom classification being based on molecular phylogenetics (e.g. Medlin 2016), no consensus has been reached so far as to what should replace the Round et al. classification and which systematic reconstructions accurately reflect diatom evolution (for review, see Mann et al. 2017). We therefore treat the diatoms here as a single group, Diatomeae, following Adl et al. (2019). It is a major and very diverse species-rich monophyletic lineage of the Heterokontophyta. In molecular phylogenetics, it forms together with the Bolidophyceae, Dictyochophyceae, and Pelagophyceae, the SIII clade (Yang et al. 2012; Figs. 2.8 and 5.2). As based on the Adl et al. classification system of eukaryotes, the Diatomeae is split into 9 lineages (subphyla), and 5 classes of diatoms are recognized (Adl et al. 2019). They never delve deeper, only mention the Adl taxa in photograph captions. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Nice! They do use ranks on Adl et al. taxa. I'm going to rank the rest of Adl et al. taxa now, then. Jako96 (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. By the way, one a completely unrelated note, which bigyran groups should be always displayed you think? Jako96 (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 When it comes to protist taxa inside a phylum, only the main ranks (phylum, class, order...) should be-and are automatically- displayed. The "exceptions" should be dealt with in each article's taxobox with the display_parents function, unless there's a really important taxon that's not a main rank (like Diatomeae). — Snoteleks (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Don't you think that jakobid suborders should always be displayed, though? They are not a phylum after all. Jako96 (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 No, those aren't very relevant except for their immediate child taxa — Snoteleks (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay. After my edits, a lot of diatom taxa are also always displayed, what do you think of them? I generally just displayed subclasses only. Jako96 (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 I think you should only always display classes, not subclasses (except for when there is no class yet). Subphyla are also irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. People don't need to see all those parent taxa if they're looking at a genus or species. — Snoteleks (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I've made changes so only Ellerbeckiophytina is always displayed, which just contains the genus Ellerbeckia without any class, order or family. Are you sure about the Leptocylindrophytina situation though (which is not always displayed now)? It includes the classes Leptocylindrophyceae and Corethrophyceae, there are no orders and families. And one last thing, are you still sure about using the non-consensus Adl et al. classification? Jako96 (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Jako96, there is absolutely no need to use always display for Ellerbeckiophytina. In general, you should be using |display_parents= to display a monotypic subphylum down to the genus level.

And in the particular case of Ellerbeckia, given how it is currently set up, the immediate child of the subphylum IS the genus, which means that you don't even need |display_parents= to show the subphylum (the immediate parent taxon is always automatically displayed).

Always display should be used exceedingly sparingly. Plantdrew (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I was expecting you here because of your recent edits. I meant that if there was an Ellerbeckia species article just created, I think we would want to display Ellerbeckiophytina, because Ellerbeckia is not incertae sedis but in its own subphylum. Jako96 (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I made the edits after seeing your comment here.

If there were articles for Ellerbeckia species, and you wanted to display a subphylum, |display_parents= would work. However, the rule of thumb is still that minor ranks (e.g. subphyla) should only be displayed above one (non-monotypic) major rank. It is OK to to display a subphylum with only a single genus in the article for that genus. If that genus has multiple species, it is not necessary to display the subphylum in the species articles. Plantdrew (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I was talking about your edits to Rhizosoleniales, Jakobid, Jakobids, Jakobida and Jakobea, I knew you checked my recent edits. Anyway, I'm fine with the latest situation I guess. Jako96 (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 That is a good point. Unfortunately in absence of a formal class the only parent is the subphylum. — Snoteleks (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Coming back to this discussion after a lot of time, but, Snoteleks, do you still think we should use Park et al. papers? Now I noticed that Adl et al. says that these genera are only examples, so. There are always non-monophyletic groups on lower levels of the hierarchy, so, maybe it's better to just follow Adl et al.? For example, Adl et al. used a "half" Melosirales, but, maybe it was phylogenetically a better grouping, I don't know. Jako96 (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@Snoteleks Well, I'm pinging you as a last try (maybe you unsubscribed), but I'm not sure if you'll take me seriously. Again, I will not go further. Jako96 (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 Sorry I'm a bit lost after this much time. What exactly is the conflict between the Park and Adl papers? — Snoteleks (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Adl et al. pulled some genera from some higher taxa and assigned to other higher taxa. As I said, take Melosirales for example. Adl et al. pulled Melosira from the family Melosiraceae in the order Melosirales and assigned it to their new Melosirophytina. So, without any paper stating otherwise, other genera from Melosirales should stay in it. But, Park et al. went ahead and assigned all of Melosirales (inside the monotypic Melosirophycidae) to Melosirophytina. This is just one example. Jako96 (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 Ah I think you are misinterpreting Adl et al. here. Their paper is not meant to be an exhaustive list of families and genera for all the "hyperdiverse" groups (algae, apicomplexans, forams, etc.). Instead they use one or few genera as examples, they do not mean to imply it's the only genera. Also, in diatoms (just like in many other groups) they ignore intermediate ranks between genera and higher ranks (in this case between Melosira and Melosirophytina), but they do not mean to imply that these intermediate ranks cease to exist. It's only with the purpose to be brief and summarize all eukaryotes. That's why they rarely write family-level taxa, except for much of ciliates and some minor clades. It's not meant to be a literal "there are no intermediate ranks, only what we write here". — Snoteleks (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

As I said, I do know these genera are only examples. The thing is, for example, Melosiraceae contains more genera, not just Melosira. So now you're saying that, for example, the order Aulacoseirales as whole should be under Melosirophytina, not just the genus Aulacoseira? Jako96 (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 Yes — Snoteleks (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

But, Neocalyptrella is assigned to Rhizosoleniophytina and Dactyliosolen is assigned to Chaetocerotophycidae (belongs to Bacillariophytina) from Rhizosoleniaceae? For this situation, Park et al. comes to rescue, but, what if there is a situation that Park et al. can't help about? I'll check soon Jako96 (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 We probably have to just figure it out on a case-by-case basis until diatomists start making sense. — Snoteleks (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The reason I'm asking you the usage of the Adl et al. (and other Adl et al. supportive papers) classification again is that I think you prefer that system because of cladistics, but now that we use polyphyletic orders Melosirales and Rhizosoleniales in Adl et al. subphyla, there is no point of using that system just because of cladistics. Jako96 (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Foraminifera subgenera indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Liz I'm not sure now. At the moment I must have seen a foraminifer subgenus but right now I can't seem to find it. — Snoteleks (talk) 06:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for thanking me for my edit to Halenia legrandi. Do you have any opinion about disambiguating Foraminifera genera that need disambiguation (or protists more broadly)? Category:Foraminifera genera and its subcategories have (foraminifera), (foram), (genus) and (protist) (with (protist) only used in titles you had created).

Disambiguating ambiguous genus on Wikipedia has been a real mess that I've spent some time trying to standardize over the last several years. The single largest source of ambiguity in genus names is other valid genera named under different nomenclatural codes (or even genera that fall under a single code where no replacement name has been published for the junior homonym). Wikipedia originally largely used (genus) as a disambiguatory term, but it really doesn't work when there are multiple genera (but I do think (genus) can be appropriate in cases such as Rhinoceros/Rhinoceros (genus) and Asparagus/Asparagus (genus) where the article at the undisambiguated title is a well known common name for a taxon at a rank other than genus).

I haven't tried to tackle disambiguating terms for protist genera yet, but I'm thinking about it. For Foraminifera, (foram) doesn't strike me as being immediately recognizable to people who have just enough biology background to have even heard of foraminiferans. There are some protist articles that use a capitalized scientific name of a clade to disambiguate (e.g. Garnia (Apicomplexa)). I don't like that. I'd be OK with (protist) being used pretty broadly to disambiguate, but it would take quite a bit more work to use that than some more specific terms (today I edited dozens of entries in List of prehistoric foraminifera genera to use (foraminifera) rather than (foram) or (genus); there is only one use in that page of (protist), where it appears as an interwiki link to a Spanish article). Plantdrew (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Plantdrew I definitely prefer to use the most general term applicable. If there's more than one protist genus with the same name, I would indeed use (foraminifer/a?) (honestly not sure which one is more appropriate in English), (apicomplexan), etc. never with the formal capitalized name. But if only one protist genus shares a name with non-protist genera, I would use (protist). I also think, if possible, a common name should always be preferred, for example (flagellate) instead of (excavate).

Also I expect that, since most cases of homonymy are due to the two independent codes, botanical and zoological, protist-protist homonymy could probably be resolved with (alga) vs. (protozoon?) instead of with specialized taxonomic names.

This is a good question to raise, as consistency would be nice — Snoteleks (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I will say, before your message I did prefer (foram) due to being shorter, but again, I don't know how layman it is over foraminifer or foraminifera. Perhaps (amoeba) would be better? — Snoteleks (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

You are saying that Planomonadea containing Ancyromonadida is not WP:OR because Ancyromonadida is a synonym of Planomonadida, which belongs to the monotypic Planomonadea according to the Cavalier-Smith paper. How does this makes sense? Do you think that if the X taxon was placed in the monotypic Y taxon by some author, and, the Z, which is a synonym of X and more popular, should be the taxon that belongs to Y? If you still not agree with me, I'll start a discussion, so I'm asking you first. Jako96 (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 There is no Z. If you understand what a synonym is, you will understand that there is only X. Go ahead and start a discussion, but I'm sure you'll find similar replies — Snoteleks (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

The Z is Ancyromonadida, I don't think this is about understanding what a synonym is, really. And, I think that you think we should also "follow" CS for ancyromonads, but I don't think we should do this because we are already not fully (except cladistics when saying fully) following CS. Jako96 (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Snoteleks. Could you send me this article's PDF via email? I really need it right now. I'm asking this to you because you have subscriptions to some journals I guess. Obviously, feel free to decline my request Jako96 (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, my institution does not provide me access to that article. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96: and Snoteleks, you should have access to that via The Wikipedia Library. The interface is a little confusing; first you have to select "Login via Wikipedia", then on the next page you need to select the particular publisher for the article/journal you want, then once you are on the publisher's page you can search for the title you want. Plantdrew (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thank you @Plantdrew I always forget that's a possibility. @Jako96 you should find it there, but it's hard to navigate. First you have to be at your 'My Collections' page, scroll down to find 'Nature', click on its collection, and then through the newly opened Nature page search for the specific article. You should be able to access it via this link. — Snoteleks (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I also forgot about that. I'm glad that I asked you in the first place, now, we both remembered WP library. Jako96 (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Plantdrew. Jako96 (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

We are not using a taxonomic treatment that uses superclass Proteomyxia directly under the phylum Endomyxa as containing the classes Vampyrellidea and Phytomyxea. We are using it because it's a clade. Just like the original ochrophyte superclasses, Fucistia, Limnistia, Hypogyrista and Khakista. They are also currently unranked clades in the wiki. You also kinda agreed with this by saying that "we can't use any ranks for ochrophytes". So, Proteomyxia also should be an unranked clade. Jako96 (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 This has nothing to do with ochrophytes. I never agreed to this and it makes no sense. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

What does "@Jako96 We should not make such decisions until there's a solid, cohesive ochrophyte classification. Chrysista and Diatomista can be interpreted as subphyla themselves, too. There is just not enough consensus of anything for us to decide on any ranks for ochrophyte clades." mean (see the "Podiata" discussion)? Notice that you used the word "any". Jako96 (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 This is not an ochrophyte clade, bro. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hah, well, then you would also support to rank the Discicristata as a superphylum again in the wiki? Jako96 (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 I guess? I never disagreed with such a thing. I didn't even notice it stopped being a superphylum. — Snoteleks (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I mean, the CS version is a superphylum and contains Euglenozoa and Percolozoa (not Heterolobosea). Though, Adl et al. 2012 used Euglenozoa and Heterolobosea under Discicristata, so maybe we should follow that? And, last thing, let's go ahead and rank or unrank all of these superclasses, not just ochrophytes. It feels weird to say the least. Jako96 (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 The policy of WP:PROTISTA is to rank clades as long as we do not run into conflicts. There is no conflict with having superphylum Discicristata, therefore it should stay that way. There is, however, conflict in ochrophyte subclades, therefore they should be unranked. Trust me, I'm the first person that wishes all the classifications were similar across supergroups, but sadly that's not the case yet. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

The only conflict is Khakista, and that's because we are using diatom subphyla/subdivisions under it. Jako96 (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Fixed ochrophyte groups and Discicristata. Last thing, which disparial groups should be always displayed you think? Jako96 (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 I think just Disparia for now. — Snoteleks (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure about Provora though? Jako96 (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 Oh I assumed Provora was already always displayed. I thought you meant the new clades. So yes, both Disparia and Provora. I'm not sure about Membrifera, does not seem very relevant right now. — Snoteleks (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I think there is no reason not to display the other subdivison of Disparia when we are already displaying one. Readers might get confused while reading a page like Solarion (Provora is seen down to species but where is Membrifera?). Jako96 (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 I suppose. I don't have a strong opinion against Membrifera, I just think Provora is very relevant. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I now also ranked Alveolata as a superphylum just like Discicristata taxon and Ochrophyta non-conflicting superclasses. Jako96 (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

If you want formal taxonomic ranks, only Caelestes is declared as phylum in the "Supplementary Discussion 1: Extended Taxonomic Summary" of the reference, "supergroup" Disparia and clade Membrifera are defined as clades (but with a quite informal definition; a proper cladistic definition has the synonym Promethea proposed for the same clade as Disparia by a competitive research team, published 2025 Jul 23; see the note in Disparia). I can also understand the hurry who will be the first, and so providing only ML phylogenomic analyses; complementary Bayesian analyses on the full dataset were not performed. We will see the stability of the Disparia position in future. --Petr Karel (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and since Caelestes is a phylum, there is no need for always-displayed, it's done automatically. And yes, the Promethea name, given that it was published earlier, should have priority (always sad to see competition instead of collaboration, especially among protistologists). But we'll see what taxonomists agree upon in the end. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Snoteleks, I saw you removed the WikiProject Protista banner from Talk:Chytridiopsida. Do you consider all Microsporidia out of scope of WikiProject Protista, or just Chytridiopsida in particular? At least a couple articles on Microsporidia taxa described them as being protozoans, and Microsporidia are explicitly excluded from the scope of the botanical code in spite of their phylogenetic position as fungi. I feel like they are not something that have traditionally been considered fungi, and WikiProject Protista is relevant, but if you disagree, I'm fine with that too. Plantdrew (talk) Plantdrew (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@Plantdrew Hi, my initial thinking is that, since we classify them as part of the kingdom Fungi (and so does the Outline of Fungi), we may exclude them from Protista, so I started removing some while doing category maintenance. But you're right in that they are usually studied alongside protists, therefore the project is still relevant. I'm not firmly set on either option, honestly. I'll give it some thought first if that's okay. — Snoteleks (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Sure, think it over. Plantdrew (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@Plantdrew After some thinking, yes, it's best that we keep Aphelidiomycota and Rozellomycota in both projects. I will undo my erasures. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)