User talk:Jmv2009

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hello, Jmv2009, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Large memory laptop, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Acroterion (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Plantsurfer. Your recent edit to the page Charophyceae appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Plantsurfer (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, I'm Plantsurfer. Your recent edit to the page Green algae appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Plantsurfer (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Charophyta, you may be blocked from editing. Plantsurfer (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

dear plantsurfer

I have http://lifeofplant.blogspot.nl/2011/05/charophyceae.html which appears to invalidate you statement that my edits are incorrect information. Bear with me while I'm trying to find more information on this.

Error on Charophyceae[edit]

Your edit on Charophyceae stated "Monophyletic Charophyceae could include Embryophytes." That is an impossible relationship, because Embryophyta is a taxon at a much level than Charophyceae. Please refer to the individual articles for clarification.Plantsurfer (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Plantsurfer: In the article I referred to it states: Furthermore, several recent analyses support the notion that a member of the Charophyceae gave rise to embryophytes. Which appears to render your impossibility possible. The comments on the talk page of another user indicate the same. I'm reverting your reversion with some references. Please advise me with your wiseness. -Jmv2009.

Dear Plansurfer,

What was wrong with the green algae edits?

Thanks, Jmv2009

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

A gummi bear holding a sign that says "Thank you"
Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Jmv2009,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you may have tried to use VisualEditor before. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Your edits at IPv6[edit]

Sorry, I accidentally caught a couple of your edits reverting some other stuff at IPv6. I see you've put it back. Again, my apologies. Rwessel (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atom laser, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page An. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Monkey edits[edit]

Re: your recent edits to monkey, Wikipedia articles are not WP:reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Jmv2009. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Jmv2009. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Competence issues at Template:Plant classification[edit]

What do you mean by this edit [1]? You're making edits that are plainly wrong, going against talk page consensus and edit warring / faffing about. If you're going to make controversial changes you should gain consensus of talk pages. It also doesn't appear that you necessary Competence to be editing sensitive templates. See also edits like [2] [3] and [4] which mess up a perfectly good template. If you have competence issues you don't have the required skill level to edit Wikipedia. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

As noted, the other authors insisted on putting the traditionally excluded clades from paraphyletic clades on the same level. I couldn't get through to them that this is misleading, and reach consensus on a more consistent layout. The proper way is to put the paraphyletic group one level wider, and include the traditionally excluded group. Several different tries to improve the situation were attempted, with increasing consideration of the objections of other people. People were reacting increasingly emotional with no real argument. I'll leave it alone. Furthermore, I disagree with the assesment that they were "messed up". Different emphasis (Clarity/Space/simplicity/accuracy) give different results. I also disagree with the assesment that they are not cladograms. In virtually all templates, the cladistic classification is fully followed.--JMV2009

Reference errors on 21 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Tetraphytina[edit]

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Jmv2009, thanks for creating Tetraphytina!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Neokaryotes) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Neokaryotes, Jmv2009!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Rather than creating isolated, largely redundant stubs consisting primarily of cladograms, it might be more instructive to redirect and discuss the proposed Orthokaryotes and Neokaryotes within a single article, e.g. Eukaryote#Phylogeny, to provide better context and balance to the reader. See for instance the four clades discussed at Myriapoda#Myriapod_relationships.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Plantae[edit]

The almost universally accepted name/rank is Plantae. Please do not make sweeping changes to kingdom-level classification without community consensus. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Both viridiplantae and Plantae were used on wikipedia. In the literature, Plantae often means including gluacophyta and rhodophyta. e.g. [5]. Sometimes Plantae in viridiplantae was used, but there was no actual difference in the groups (this happens more often). So using Plantae had more issues that using viridiplantae.

Both names have articles, but the kingdom taxon by consent is Plantae. Many of the uses the violate this consensus were put in place by you. Stop.

FYI, I only recently changed some.Jmv2009 (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

We also do not list multiple names in a taxobox except as synonyms, and only when they are actually synonyms. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There is some discussion going on with Plantae, as in the literature it appears usually senso lato, which made them synonyms. Let's wait for that discussion.

Parazoa[edit]

Jmv2009 -

There is a lot of conflicting information out about which taxa is the base. It is possible to refute Porifera and Ctenophora article for article. I suggest it might be more accurate at this time to express this something like this:

"At the present time there is no definite answer as to which taxa is the base taxa for all other animals. There have been reports that Porifera are the base taxa, which has been the traditional view, but there has been recent research that indicates Ctenophora may be the base taxa."

I have been in touch which several researchers and there is some information due to come out but the papers are currently embargoed that would tilt towards Porifera. Until the final consensus is in (which may be the twelfth of never) it might be worthwhile to provide a text indicating that this topic is a little squishy at the moment and also provide alternate versions of the clade diagram next to each other to reflect this.

There was a good paper that discussed the problem with statistical methodologies being used in that one method may provide strong results and another method may provide just as strong support. In addition, the choice of which samples to use complicates matters. Several papers have been published where the same data has been reanalyzed by a different methodology and different results where reached. And then there is the problem on Long Branch Artifacts. The farther back in time you go the more likely there could be a problem with LBAs due to variable rates of evolutionary change for genes that were not known, were not taken into account, or just didn't fit a notion.

So, I believe it might be a good idea to indicate that there is some discussion going on at this time as to which is the oldest, which would add authenticity to the Wikipedia entry.

As an aside, one of the reasons I favor Porifera is the discovery of fossil specimens of sponges or sponge like animals (they really do look like sponges) and of spicules in the fossil record that are older than 760 mya. That is a lot older than I am. I have not seen any records of Ctenophora in the fossil record that old. The fossils were found in Namibia. However, to stay pure at this point I believe e it would be better to indicate there is a discussion going on and there is no definite answer yet.Yerginml (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


Marc Yergin

Dear Marc, thank you for your comments. Briefly before your comments, I had already added the alternative Porifera-sister hypothesis to the article. Now, I added even more hedging. Furthermore, I resurrected the Diploblast article, which encompasses the sister-Porifera hypothesis. Please feel free to add more refs to that article. Also see the Animal article for more such discussion. More sources are always welcome (especially secondary ones!). Strictly speaking, we should actually not even be acting on primary sources, let alone embargoed papers. But let's see whether the tilting towards Porifera is actually over the vertical position. Then, there is still the possibility of a Porifera-Ctenophora clade. In the Whelan paper, when the genes which were likely to causing long branch attraction (fast evolving ones?) were removed, the Ctenophora-basal hypotheses got more basal, not less. The main problem of a late divergence date of the Ctenophora was not resolved by improved Ctenophora sampling. However, the divergence date was pushed earlier (to ~350 Million years ago). Also 760 Million years ago may not mean much, see [1] Jmv2009 (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Jim -

The 760 mya wasn't from phylogenomic data - It was from finding a fossil that was 760 mya old. Blew me away when I read the following article:

Brain, C.K., et al (2012) The first animals: ca 760-million-year-old sponge-like fossils from Nambia. 108(1/2) Art #658 8 pages.

It has a really nice photo of the fossil that looks remarkably like extant sponges from today. Like I said, it really did blow me away.

This is my first venture into commenting on Wikipedia articles. I am impressed by how nice the discourse has been. If you ever need help with an article or information on sponges/porifera please do not hesitate to contact me. I still like the old saw that I heard more than 50 years ago in a zoology class (my first one): "Under the most carefully controlled conditions a living organism will do whatever it dam well pleases." I guess it holds as well for the historical record as well. When that embargoed article is out I'll let you know. Marc

It is true that it appears that actual fossils in that era occur way after the from molecular clocks apparent origination date.Jmv2009 (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dohrmann, Martin; Wörheide, Gert (2017-06-15). "Dating early animal evolution using phylogenomic data". Scientific Reports. 7 (1). doi:10.1038/s41598-017-03791-w. ISSN 2045-2322. 

Megavirus?[edit]

Hi, you've removed from Eukaryote both refs and the mention of ?Megavirus? with ref to a paper "Symbiosis in eukaryotic evolution" which doesn't even mention the word megavirus. Why? If something is a hoax then fine, but if not, then surely we at least have to mention it and say it's discredited by x, y, and z. What's going on? Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It does not mention Megavirus, but it does mention "giant viruses". I took them to be the same concept, but maybe I'm wrong?Jmv2009 (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps they are, perhaps not. Seems a flaky basis for decisions. Assuming you're right for the moment, why would that justify total removal rather than saying that there was once a theory about Megaviruses but now that's discredited? Why would you not say that? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. I had recently put that cladogram in (copied from Proteoarchaeota), and it seemed a bit much, too much clutter, and not very well supported/too speculative. There is also room for hypothesis about the nucleus in the rest of the article. Thanks for your comments.Jmv2009 (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Jmv2009. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Cidney Fisk for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cidney Fisk 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/Cidney Fisk 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. John from Idegon (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Taxonomy/Ichthyosporea[edit]

Howdy, Could you include a reference for the update you made to Template:Taxonomy/Ichthyosporea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? I know not all the taxo templates have them, but the previous version did, so to avoid any confusion it'd be good to have one here. Thanks. Nessie (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@NessieVL: The taxonomy (and templates below) should be well references in the articles themselves. In this case the Ichtyopsorea article. Please let me know if something is missing there.Jmv2009 (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Zoosporia for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zoosporia 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/Zoosporia 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. Souvik Nova (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Zoospoia was redirected to opisthosporidia due to aphelida getting associated with eumycota.Jmv2009 (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

May 2018[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to [[:Zoosporia]], did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Souvik Nova (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at Zoosporia. Souvik Nova (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Souvik Nova: I did not do such thing.Jmv2009 (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Messing with tags[edit]

You are found messing with tags and instead of giving a warning you repeated it. Dont mess with tags. You can easily move your page into Zoospore Page and you keep editing. You can contact me through email too. If you have done a good work on a article I will nominate it for good article and you will get a barnstar or wikiproject award. Souvik Nova (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


@Souvik Nova: Please explain. Please give the example. I don't know what you mean by "messing with tags and instead of giving a warning you repeated it", as the statement does not make sense. The only thing I can think of was that there was an edit conflict, and I discarded the interfering edit.

Note: Souvik Nova was blocked shortly after this for abuse and sockpuppetry.Jmv2009 (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Zoosporia) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Zoosporia, Jmv2009!

Wikipedia editor Usernamekiran just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Hi. I removed the maintenance tags except one: This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. Also, the article will not get deleted :)

To reply, leave a comment on Usernamekiran's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

usernamekiran(talk) 10:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

"Cladograms"[edit]

Hi, I noticed a few things about some of your recent edits to the tree diagrams in various articles' phylogeny sections.

Firstly, the maximum likelihood trees that we use widely are phylogenetic trees; cladistics people (not me) are very picky about the term cladogram, and in a phylogeny section the tree article is clearly the right thing to link.

Secondly, it's really helpful to other editors if the tree diagrams are constructed tidily with equal indents for each level; I'd appreciate it if you could help to make sure that any diagram we edit is made a little easier to maintain with each edit.

If I'm allowed to mention one more thing, it is that we should try to construct well-formed trees with binary forks; when the state of play is so flaky that this can't be done, I'd suggest that we say explicitly that the tree is not yet fully resolved (as of 2018, or whatever). Having a tree with half-a-dozen individual fossil species listed with no structure, next to a well-resolved branch of living species, is not ideal, and on the whole I'd like to remove all such lists from phylogenetic trees.

Hope all this makes some sort of sense. The goal, surely, is to provide diagrams that make the text easier to understand, and give readers a quick and reliable overview of a group's evolution; for that, they must be clear and concise. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Please describe what in your opinion the difference is between a phylogenetic tree and a cladogram, so I can take it into account. Often the timeline is included in the trees/cladograms as well. On maybe a seperate note, is it correct that we should use cladogram templates?

When you mention equal indents on each level: I assume you are talking about the code behind the screan: That appears very hard to maintain, as often branches merge and unmerge as they are recognized from paraphyletic to monophyletic, and vice versa. Also, parts of cladograms are sometimes transfered between other cladograms. On the other hand, it is nice to have, so feel free to do it. Or better, write a bot.

I strongly disagree that we should remove fossils from the trees, even though the phylogeny may not be that clear, as it improves our understanding of the evolution (why are people studying fossils otherwise anyway?).

On a side note, it is especially the fossils that make it clear that any clearly paraphyletic grouping is impossible to maintain, because fossils will invariably lead to ridiculous discussions when maintaining paraphyletic groupings with fossils. There are still a 20 odd places on wikipedia were paraphyletic groups are used. See e.g. the monkey article, where the literature speaks of monkeys for the ancestral common group, but somehow they are still regarded as two groups (while it should be at least three, if you include the ancestral groups.) Inevitably, the paraphyletic groups are discarded or accomodated eventually.

About always bifurcating: Sometimes there is no info. If there is info, I usually bifurcate, probably on too weak evidence. Jmv2009 (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hm. All our trees of phylogenetic relationships in our phylogeny sections are, plainly and necessarily, phylogenetic trees, presumably and we hope maximum likelihood ones too; if they happen also to be cladistic hypotheses, that might be interesting but it's not what we should be getting into. On maintaining the indents, it's simply good practice to format articles properly; "transferring" without formatting is, frankly, laziness. Nobody is asking for all fossils to be deleted, simply for them to be inserted properly rather than listed without any decent indication of phylogenetic position, combined with no discussion above the tree about how well resolved it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Gloeomargarita lithophora[edit]

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Jmv2009, thanks for creating Gloeomargarita lithophora!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add categories.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Charophyta as a division[edit]

The higher taxonomy of plants is a muddle, I know, but when you made the taxonomy template for Charophyta show its rank as a division and made it a parent taxon, you created a mess lower down, with many inconsistent rank orders, since Charophyta now had multiple divisions as subordinate taxa, sometimes way down the classification. I've changed the subordinate taxa to "cladus", but please do not change taxonomic hierarchies in this way without considering and fixing the full effects of your changes. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@User:Peter coxhead: It appears that with you, you mean me personally, rather than generally. That's a bit too much honor. In any case, please note that I did not change the hierarchy of the Charophyta. See e.g. [6] which was before the first edit I made on Charophyta. Jmv2009 (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Template:Taxonomy/Charophyta, which you did create, and which recently caused problems when you made this edit, which meant that, e.g., Template:Taxonomy/Horneophyta showed two divisions – both Horneophyta and Charophyta. In taxonomy templates, it's best to leave the higher ranks as clades where there is no widely agreed set of ranks. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@User talk:Peter coxhead For me, taxonomic ranks are not determined by biology but by history, so inherently arbitrary: It's arbitrary based on past assessments, extinctions, etc... In Rugiero et al (2015), they introduced the notion of "superphylum" for Charophyta/Streptophyta. We could go with that, but wikipedia doesn't support it yet. So from my part, feel free to change any taxonomic rank, if you feel it is appropriate (I trust you).

Yes, ranks are utterly arbitrary, we agree. Their usefulness is to provide a recognisable ordering in a classification, which is why multiple occurrences of the same rank in a hierarchy needs to be fixed.
Actually, the automated taxobox system does handle the ranks "superdivisio" as well as "superphylum". So this may be a good solution that can be sourced. I'll think a bit more about it. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:Charophyta#Rank for my latest thoughts. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)