Notability for academics
Hello! Thanks for being an active member of Wikipedia. However, I've noticed you've created several biographies of scientists who might not meet notability requirements for Wikipedia. Please see detailed criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics), as well as the more general Notability (people) and General notability guidelines. In short, scientific research is often routine and non-notable practice for scientists, and not all professors are notable: they often only merit an article if the significance (notability) of an academic has already been established. Please also take care to not make a biographical, encyclopedia article something that resembles a CV or resume, or other examples of what Wikipedia is not. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Animalparty. Thank you for reminding me about the notability requirements. I have checked them and believe the scientists I wrote about meet more than one of those requirements (Most of them Ellison Medical Foundation senior scholars in addition to their other contributions). However, I realize that I should add independent sources of information, as I relied too heavily on university press releases and faculty profiles. Cheers, Zuzie3 (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Zuzie3, I thought I'd explain why I reverted your edit to Plasmodium. As you are probably aware, Cavalier-Smith's Kingdom Protozoa is an accepted taxon and features prominently in the classification system proposed in Ruggiero et al, 2015. However, in their system Plasmodium is not included under Kingdom Protozoa at all, but under Kingdom Chromista! The informal use of the word protozoa in the lead of the article does not mean that the organism in question is, in formal taxonomic terms, a member of Kingdom Protozoa. Many traditional protozoa (including ciliates, such as Paramecium) are excluded from the "Kingdom Protozoa" in Cavalier-Smith's classification. In any case, it remains to be seen how much support this classification scheme will receive, so it is premature to bring Wikipedia into line with it.
Also, please be cautious about introducing Kingdom Protozoa elsewhere, particularly among the child taxa of Amoebozoa. Some time ago, I reluctantly added the group to the taxobox of the Amoebozoa article, as a way of preventing well-meaning users from inserting the (nonexistent) "Kingdom Amoebozoa" into the taxobox. That problem seems to have had its roots in the Eukaryote article, which (wrongly, in my opinion) referred to the supergroup Amoebozoa (along with Excavata, Rhizaria, etc) as a "Kingdom." However, that problem has since been rectified, so "Kingdom Amoebozoa" probably won't cause any problems in the future. By and large, Wikipedians seem to favor the unranked high-level taxonomy of Adl et al, 2012. So, rather than rewriting all the child taxa of Amoebozoa to place them under "Kingdom Protozoa" it might be better to use "unranked_regnum Amoebozoa" in the Amoebozoa article. Unless you object, I will make that change.
(Edit to add: Oh, I forgot to thank you for helping on those articles. The protist pages don't get much attention, and they need a lot of work!) cheers, Deuterostome (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)