green algea reverts
You wrote in the revert: Streptophyta is a perfect monophyletic clade, and includes Charophytes but is in no way synonymous with that group)
What is the delta between Streptophyta and Charphytes, except a "small" land plants branch further in the tree? In Viridiplantae there is no difference in the cladogram.
The difference is that Streptophyta includes land plants (Embryophyta) but Charophyta does not. They cannot therefore be synonyms. Viridiplantae includes Chlorophyta and Streptophyta (Charophyta + Embryophyta). Plantsurfer (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, different people have different viewpoints. Personally I don't find the argument helpful. It's a bit like calling birds dinosaurs. If you think this has any traction as a consensus view, and can be supported by secondary sources then you should make a case for it on the talk page, not here. Plantsurfer 20:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
We are (for any consistent definition of these words, including for all extinct specimens) Bacteria, Animals, Worms, Fish, Mammals, Monkeys, Apes, despite the well documented historical squeamishness.Jmv2009 (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC) And of course birds are dinosaurs. That's the first thing one learns about birds these days. Of course no all Dinosaurs were birds, but that's another statement.
- Only if you choose, arbitrarily, to define "consistent" in this context in a particular way. Bacteria, for example, are prokaryotes, humans are not. Monkeys, as the word is used by most people, are a paraphyletic group, excluding apes. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Just one question
Why was it not an improvement? Is it not better to avoid informal names? You know, they taste badly, sounding like a baby-talk, and they contribute little sense to any new reader. Better to avoid both slang & jargon. - 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Please raise any discussion of this on the article's talk page, not here.Plantsurfer 19:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, you told me to ask you here why you undid the change. So I am. - 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Glossary of botanical terms (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
Scottish Fairground Culture Editathon, May 2015
Hey there! As a Wikipedian in Scotland I thought you might be interested in the Scottish Fairground Culture editathon taking place on 7 May at the Riverside Museum - drop me a line if you'd like to know more, or if you'd be interested in taking part remotely! Lirazelf (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oh dear, linkfail! Here's the correct one... Scottish Fairground Culture Editathon Lirazelf (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Plantsurfer, I've addressed your concerns with respect to the bit about the DV percentages not being self-explanatory. It seemed like a pretty easy conclusion to make honestly with the chart right there but it now explicitly spells that out. In the future, please consider improving the current content rather than reverting. It's much more productive and produces fewer conflicts. Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)