User talk:Nikita-Kluge

Nikita-Kluge, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Nikita-Kluge! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Cladoendesis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cladoendesis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cladoendesis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Neoptera and Notoptera

I note that you appear to be citing yourself with respect to the Neoptera cladogram, in which case welcome to Wikipedia. May I at once caution that, like all scientists, you must be extremely careful to be studiously neutral in any matter, such as Neoptera, on which you have an outside interest (Wikipedia pedantically calls this a "conflict of interest" and inevitably has a whole policy, WP:COI, all about it). In this case, if you have a position on the group's phylogeny and other scientists have a different position, you are required to be studiously neutral on the matter, and must either explain both sides with equal emphasis, or must limit yourself to commenting and placing edit requests on the article's talk page.

There appears to be an issue with the status of the Notoptera as represented in the phylogenetic tree. I understand that the name Notoptera has been reused to mean {Grylloblattidae + Mantophasmatidae} by some scientists. It looks as if you disagree with that assignation, so I think it will be necessary for the for and against positions to be clarified in the article(s). With best wishes, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Every scienbtist can have his own opinion, and Wikipedia must reflex all scientific opinions. However, the name Notoptera was given by Crampton (1915) to the order which includes grulloblattids only and is characterized by a peculiar structute of the notum, which is fused with the vestiges of wings (= ptera). Mantophasmatidae have nothing like this. If somebody believes that Mantophasmatidae are related with Grylloblattidae, he is free to accept the taxon which unites them; this taxon bears the scientific name Xenonomia Terry & Whiting 2005. But nobody may rename this taxon with the wrong name "Notoptera", which belongs to another taxon. So the naming Grylloblattidae + Mantophasmatidae "Notoptera" is nothing more than an error, and this error should be corrected in Wikipedia. User: Nikita-Kluge