User talk:Snoteleks

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

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

Welcome!

I agree that the exact phrase "multiply paraphyletic" isn't common (although both a straight Google search and a Google Scholar search found instances for me), but see the definition of "doubly paraphyletic" here. It's not the case that the term paraphyly cannot be qualified. A paraphyly is a clade with one or more embedded clades removed; counting the number of clades removed qualifies the term. As the Palaeos glossary says under "triply paraphyletic", "There would also be quadruply paraphyletic groups and so on."

The "Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa" box in the taxobox of Protist implies that Protista is triply paraphyletic, because three monophyletic groups – animals, fungi and embryophytes – are excluded. Maybe it would be better to say "triply paraphyletic" in the opening. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead I just don't see the necessity, it's an overly specific adjective for a term that is already understood in its absence without issue. But I will look into it, since you reached out. Perhaps it could appear in the first section of the article. — Snoteleks (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was concerned that an editor had changed some text from "paraphyly" to "polyphyly", which I reverted. I'm aware from previous interactions that it's not uncommon to believe that "paraphyly" only applies to a single removed clade. But I agree it's not needed in the first sentence if made clear elsewhere. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead You were absolutely right from reverting the change to polyphyly, as it is wrong. I thank you for that edit. Honestly it does seem plausible that some people would think that paraphyly implies a single removed clade. However I trust that the definition of paraphyly speaks for itself, where ancestry and not number of removed clades is the defining characteristic.

I also must admit that part of the reason why I didn't like the addition of the adjective "multiply" is the sensation that it could be easily confused with the verb "multiply", but that might just be me projecting. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

btw if there are to be many incertae sedis then they can go in a footnote, or a separate list article, they don't have to take up an acre of space at the top of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap That's what I think as well. I changed the recent taxobox subdivision edits of adding Meteora for that reason. The Protist article already has a section on those uncertain genera. — Snoteleks (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As of 13:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC), Provora:

• has 8 known species – a new species was discovered in 2024 called Nibbleromonas piranha Belyaev et al. 2024.
• is incertae sedis within Eukaryota (but was formerly classified in Diaphoretickes as sister to the clade of Haptista, possibly Telonemia and Sar) – according to the same 2024 study, Provora may be closer to Hemimastigophora than Diaphoretickes. Hemimastigophora is also classified Eukaryota incertae sedis.

The reason I wrote is that in your cladogram page, Provora is placed in Diaphoretickes, and in the full Eukaryota cladogram, Provora was said to have 7 species. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alfa-ketosav Thanks! — Snoteleks (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]