User talk:Snoteleks

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Welcome!

Thanks for The 6 Thanks

You've gave me a total of 6 thanks. Thank you! I will pay my debt sometime. Jako96 (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 No problem at all, I always thank edits that I appreciate — Snoteleks (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User 2001:1308:2695:7300:28f9:8297:d35a:7cf8 is directly vandalising wiki pages such as choanozoa and parazoa pls help before people are misdirected.

Please kindly help to stop vandalising. YameenØriøn (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@YameenØriøn Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I didn't know they were also modifying other pages. I checked this User's edit history and it seems that they were only active on march 16th, and all of their edits were reverted eventually by other users. Perhaps you know a different user that's vandalising right now in those articles? — Snoteleks (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch the parazoa wiki page sometimes as he reverts edits there .I am a big fan of ur editing style.:)Thanks for ur quick response. YameenØriøn (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@YameenØriøn That's very kind, thank you :) I always try to respond as soon as possible. I will make sure to watch that page! — Snoteleks (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx vmuch

thnanks YameenØriøn (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why Revert My Edit?

Planomonadea and Planomonada are not published (not peer-reviewed). Jako96 (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 Planomonadea (the class) was described in a peer-reviewed article by T. Cavalier-Smith published in 2022. Planomonada (the phylum) is indeed not published. — Snoteleks (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh. I'm so sorry then. Jako96 (talk) 07:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 That's alright. Just please make sure to check the reference parameter before doing any big changes, and try to explain the reason behind your edits and deletions whenever possible. — Snoteleks (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The authority parameter was saying "Tedersoo 2017". That was the reason. Jako96 (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean the reference parameter in the taxonomy template, not the article taxobox. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I checked it but because the authority was saying different, I guess I was kinda confused. Jako96 (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste moves

You should not be making cut and paste moves as you did for Bicellum, Apusomonad and Nucleariid. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for the rationale behind the prohibition on cut and paste moves. At least for swapping the article title used for monotypic taxa, as with Bicellum, a request for a move made at WP:RM/TR should get a response fairly quickly. I suspect an RM/TR request for Apusomonad would've been be carried out as well. Nucleariid perhaps should've gone through a formal requested move (I'm not quite sure what you want to happen there; was leaving Cristidiscoidea in the taxobox intentional or a mistake?). Plantdrew (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew I'm very sorry. I have the Swap tool allowed on my account, but for some reason yesterday it was not responding no matter how many times I tried using it, so at the moment I thought it would make sense to do it manually instead. I had no idea it would cause issues with the article history. I will remember not to do it again, and instead do a request at WP:RM/TR.

About leaving Cristidiscoidea in the taxobox, it was neither intentional nor a mistake, I simply thought it was not relevant at the moment (also, changing it to Rotosphaerida, which is what I would do, would cause evident issues in the Nucleariida article and I would have been forced to make a quick change). But I did forget to update the taxonomy template link, that is my fault. — Snoteleks (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that in some cases you don't even need to use any funky tricks - Bicellum could have been moved to that name with just the standard page move tool available to autoconfirmed users, for example. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery The move tool does not work if the target is already a page that exists (it was a redirect page, in this case). — Snoteleks (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Moving a page#Moving over a redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery That only works for when there's one single entry in the target's page history, which I guess was not the case, since I got the message that the move wasn't possible. But don't worry, my Swap tool is working fine again. This shouldn't happen again. — Snoteleks (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Please kindly recall that an article's talk page is not a forum. It is only for discussing the content of the one article that the talk page is attached to. Many thanks for your attention to this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap The discussion does concern the contents of the article. It's about using taxon ranks on the major animal subgroups, and the Animal article mentions (or mentioned) them by rank. Consequently, it also involves the ranks used in the taxobox system, but the discussion reasonably started and continued in the Animal talk page because the user that began the discussion noticed the issue present in the article. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap On a completely unrelated note, since you're one of the main editors of Animal, what is your sentiment toward the inclusion of Domain Eukaryota in animal taxoboxes? — Snoteleks (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've more or less no opinion, as I think taxoboxes have very little value. The domain is obviously a major and well-defined taxon; whether it's worth going up to that level is not something I'm very interested in really, beyond the observation that if boxes are needed at all, they should be small. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Nucleariid

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nucleariid you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ZKevinTheCat -- ZKevinTheCat (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Nucleariid

The article Nucleariid you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Nucleariid and Talk:Nucleariid/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ZKevinTheCat -- ZKevinTheCat (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Nucleariid

The article Nucleariid you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nucleariid for comments about the article, and Talk:Nucleariid/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 ZKevinTheCat -- ZKevinTheCat (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to collaborate on some other algae/protist articles?

Hey, I wanted to say thanks for bringing the Algae article back to my (and others') attention and helping clean it up more. I saw on your User Page that you've done a lot of reworks of other major articles to good status. Back when I started ~a year ago, I started working on cleaning up Chloroplast. It's a lot of information that has since been split off and also retained in the original article. At the time, I planned/proposed lots of changes on the Talk page and started working on it, but as a relatively new editor (and fairly busy IRL), I thought it might be something you'd be interested in, so I wanted to reach out to let you know about it!! Cyanochic (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no problem, I appreciate that you're also on board. I am honestly interested, so thanks for the reachout; I admit I have a harder time adapting preexisting articles, but I do like to give it a shot now and then, when the deities of hyperfocus bless me. Congrats on being a PhD student, good luck with your thesis! — Snoteleks (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Algae Wikidata descriptions

Judging from the discussion at Talk:Algae#Algae are not just eukaryotic, you may be interested to know that Wikidata's English description for them at algae (Q37868) is currently "group of plant-like eukaryotic organisms which mostly grow in water and can photosynthesise". Apparently before November 2022, this was "group of eukaryotic organisms, able to perform oxygenic photosynthesis and to obtain organic carbon from solar energy". (I haven't checked any further back to see if there was ever a less "eukaryotic" description in the past, I need sleep right now.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Monster Iestyn Omg definitely do get sleep. Thanks for reaching out though, haha, I feel like an eminence with the amount of talk comments I'm getting about algae. Will definitely look into it whenever I can. — Snoteleks (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Monster Iestyn I think I fixed it correctly! — Snoteleks (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Unfortunately as you saw it looks like the problem also spread to some of the other languages... (I know you fixed some but there are still others... I don't know enough German (yet) to fix the German description myself for instance, though I could just use Google Translate I guess?) Also haha yeah, you've demonstrated you know your stuff with protists and algae etc. from what I can see, so that may have something to do with all the talk comments you're getting. :) Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry for the late response) I would fix the other languages but I don't have as much confidence doing that either. Anyway, I'm very glad my special (and now professional) interests are being noticed as expertise hahaha — Snoteleks (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a template-class article

There is no such thing as a template-class article, see Wikipedia:What is an article?. You might wanna edit your user page. You can change it to something like "Templates" or "Template Pages". Jako96 (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Supergroup Disparia is coming?

Have you already noticed this preprint? The long awaited publication with the description of a new basal-group eukaryote Solarion arienae is here, with proposals of new taxons (supergroup Disparia, clade Membrifera, phylum Caelestes, family Solarionidae) and changes in the Diaphoretickes tree basal topology (overview in Extended Data Fig. 10, in more detail in the SupplementaryData1.pdf linked at the end of the preprint). I hope the review will allow the early publishing. Petr Karel (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Petr Karel: I would point out that we should be very wary of using taxa not supported by secondary sources, such as taxonomic databases. Ideally we should never use a single journal article as the only source. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is no need to hurry with changing the wiki artices (I am not Jako96). But it is important to know, there are different hypotheses and the presented true is relative. (I like mentioning such competiting hypothesis as a note, the user should know about. But of course after the hypothesis is reviewed and published in a solid journal; that is why I inform about it only on a User talk page.) Petr Karel (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Petr Karel They're really going for it? I didn't know about the preprint but I've been told about Disparia being the new name for the Hemimastigophora+Provora+Meteora clade. I don't know why they chose the name Disparia when the name Diaphoretickes pretty much means the same. However Solarion is definitely news to me. I'll check out the preprint today, thanks! — Snoteleks (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are right with the scope of Disparia. But Diaphoretickes is a much more inclusive clade, including not only the proposed Disparia but also the supergroups SAR, Haptista, (Pan)Cryptista and Archaeplastida. Placing Disparia inside Diaphoretickes is fully in compliance with the original cladistic definition of Diaphoretickes in Adl-2012; this definition is also the best support for the position of Diaphoretickes and its basal orphans in eukaryotic taxoboxes (I noticed some recent discussions about it). Petr Karel (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Petr Karel Sorry, I didn't mean they were the same clade; I meant that the etymology of both Diaphoretickes and Disparia are extremely similar. To my knowledge, both names simply mean "organisms very different from each other" — Snoteleks (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this might be wrong. I never looked up what Diaphoretickes actually means, it seems to be something to do with perspiration or transmission. — Snoteleks (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I was right. It's from Greek diaforetikés, which means disparate, dissimilar. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Narutolovehinata5

Hello, Snoteleks. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Nucleariid.
Message added 00:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we link SAR supergroup as separate or not?

Should we link SAR supergroup as "SAR supergroup" or "SAR supergroup"? What do you think? Right now, both are used in the wiki. Jako96 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 It shouldn't be a clear-cut monopoly. Both can and should be used. Only if you really want people to have a link to supergroup, and there's not any link yet, you could link to both articles separately. Otherwise it really doesn't matter. — Snoteleks (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted this edit of mine, that's why I'm asking you this question. I think we should generally link them separately, as supergroup is a (informal) rank and SAR is a taxon. For example, "phylum Euglenozoa" also should be linked separately. Jako96 (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 I reverted your edit because you changed "[[SAR supergroup]]" to "[[SAR supergroup|SAR]] supergroup", which is completely unnecessary. You've also needlessly extended wikilinks in what appears as a battle against redirects.

On the topic at hand here, there is no need to link separately, as I mentioned before. — Snoteleks (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Jako96 (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought supergroup was just a rank and shouldn't be linked again and again. I linked (linked supergroup too this time) them separately in the Telonemia page now. Jako96 (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 Repetition of links should be avoided (see MOS:LINKONCE), but linking to the 'supergroup' article is different from linking to the 'SAR supergroup' article, just like linking to 'World War' is different from linking to 'World War II'. — Snoteleks (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colponemea

So Colponemea also should redirect to Colponema? Jako96 (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 It's hard to say. Colponemea sensu Tikhonenkov et al. (2014) is exclusively Colponema, while Colponemea sensu Cavalier-Smith (2017) is Colponema and Palustrimonas. I would just redirect it to Colponemid. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Jako96 (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Myzozoa

Thanks for sending five thanks! And, I think we should not use the unranked Myzozoa as parents to taxa, because no Myzozoa in sources is unranked and includes four phyla. Jako96 (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No prolbem. But you can't just go around adding Miozoa (a polyphyletic group) to the taxobox system but then say we shouldn't use Myzozoa (a well-supported clade). The sources exist out there, you just have to add them. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm removing Dinozoa, Miozoa and Myzozoa from parents then. Jako96 (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will revert any removal of Dinozoa and Myzozoa because those are supported clades. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said no problem, what? Jako96 (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I said no problem in response to your thanks. I should've been clearer. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhhh, okay. Jako96 (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry. I usually respond with "no problem" to thanks, I can see why that was confusing. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Finally, the Alveolata taxonomy is good! That felt nice. And, do you still think we should use Myzozoa and Dinozoa as unranked clades? By the way, I didn't know Miozoa was polyphyletic there. Jako96 (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, because it's very common that Dinoflagellata, Perkinsozoa, Chromerida and Apicomplexa are treated as phyla. Myzozoa was proposed as phylum by T. Cavalier-Smith, but then he lowered it down to subphylum and placed Miozoa as phylum, so really nobody is treating Myzozoa as phylum anymore. And yes, Miozoa are polyphyletic (or paraphyletic?) because it's all Alveolata except Ciliophora. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Jako96 (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this article treats Miozoa as a clade. Jako96 (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 That article is from Thomas Cavalier-Smith, who incessantly argued for the monophyly of certain groups based on very weak phylogenetic support, like Miozoa, Chromista, Hacrobia... If you take a look at these articles (doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.10.062, doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2020.106839, doi:10.1016/j.protis.2023.125949) you can see that in the early 2010s it seemed like Miozoa could be a clade according to weak analyses, but that eventually technological upgrades led to more robust analyses that cannot resolve it as a clade (especially that last study from 2023). There's colponemids that are more closely related to ciliates, while others are more closely related to myzozoans. If you read the Colponemid article you would find this same information. — Snoteleks (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Jako96 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphyletic protist taxa

For protists, I think we shouldn't use paraphyletic/polyphyletic taxa or taxa with uncertain monophyly as parent to other taxa, such as Bigyra (just like we don't use Eolouka). What do you think? Jako96 (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 Ideally, we shouldn't, but there are certain taxa for which we really don't know non-monophyly for certain, or that we know are non-monophyletic but the scientific consensus is to temporarily have a paraphyletic taxon as a placeholder until better phylogenetic analyses give a monophyletic alternative. That's the case with Monothalamea, Colponemida, Bigyra, etc. If you see a paraphyletic taxon in Adl et al. (2019), which is already prioritizing clades, it is likely that it's the best solution before better clades are resolved.

That is what we as Wikipedia editors should prioritize because it is the scientific consensus, and thus we avoid WP:OR because we don't erase intermediate taxa. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Jako96 (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing CRuMs to "CRuMs"

I apologize if I tired you so much but this is the last. I think we should either use SAR in taxoboxes or change CRuMs with "CRuMs". Because ISOP states that CRuMs is informal (therefore technically invalid). See: [1] What do you think? Jako96 (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 Quotation marks are OR, so no. — Snoteleks (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ISOP used it in table 2. Jako96 (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 Well sure, but it doesn't reflect scientific consensus. Most papers don't use quotation marks when labeling CRuMs (as far as I know). And I thought we as editors concluded that quotation marks in the taxonomy template system was disagreed upon, as I remember — Snoteleks (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Sar" is not consensus too. Jako96 (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 I see what you mean, but unlike Sar, CRuMs does not have a formal taxonomic description (same with TSAR, CAM, and so on). It would be like if there was no Animalia or Metazoa and we could only put Animals in the taxobox. Sure, people regularly just say Animals, but we all know the taxonomy templates are for the formal taxa when present. When they're not present, we just use the informal names, without quotation marks. — Snoteleks (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By formal description, you mean phylogenetic definition? Jako96 (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Sar, yes, but not all taxa are defined phylogenetically. — Snoteleks (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, CRuMs just includes diphylleids, rigifilids and mantamonads. It has a description. Jako96 (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I removed marks from Template:Taxonomy/Ichthyostegalia with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Taxonomy/Ichthyostegalia&diff=prev&oldid=1291339701 Jako96 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 A formal or taxonomic description is different than just saying there's a clade of diphylleids, rigifilids and mantamonads. It has to have a diagnosis like Sar (e.g., «the most inclusive clade containing Mantamonas, Rigifila and Collodictyon but excluding Homo sapiens, Arabidopsis thaliana and Euglena viridis»some kind of morphological or molecular diagnosis). Also, if there ever is a formal description of CRuMs (which hopefully there will be in the next Adl et al. release), it will probably not have the name CRuMs but a different name that is only capitalised in the first letter. I'm not sure if Crumalia had a formal description, but there's probably a reason why it's not scientific consensus — Snoteleks (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "unranked" Diatomeae does not have a description too, and it is not valid under any code. Jako96 (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 Why do you say that it doesn't have a description? It's a centuries-old taxon — Snoteleks (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that technically the "unranked" Diatomeae is informal. Jako96 (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 If it's a taxon, it's not informal. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]