This page is within the scope of WikiProject Protista, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
protists and
protistology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ProtistaWikipedia:WikiProject ProtistaTemplate:WikiProject ProtistaProtista articles
This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale.
Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 20:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
A
requested move discussion has been initiated for
Mesomycetozoea to be moved to
Ichthyosporea. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion
here. —
RMCD bot 14:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)reply
To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{
bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up
Article alerts for this WikiProject.
@
Jts1882 I understand that, but at the same time, Apusozoa is an abandoned taxon whose only usage is within Cavalier-Smith's hierarchical classification, not the current cladistic classification of eukaryotes. If we apply this rule that every abandoned taxon should be added into the automated taxobox system, we would end up with a lot of outdated para- or polyphyletic taxa whose only parent is Eukaryota or something nearly as big, because its parent taxa are also abandoned. Which doesn't make sense to me. I don't think the disputed taxa should intermingle with the automated taxoboxes.
If it is deserving of an article, then I think it should have a taxobox. The taxobox has more information than just the taxonomy and the taxonomy is still relevent if the taxon is no longer used. The question is which deserve articles. I've seen enough independent coverage of Apusozoa to warrant an article, but
Diacentrida and
Sarcomastigota are little used by others. That is why I think a taxobox reflecting the taxonomy shown in the phylogenetic tree would be better. Just adding |auto=yes to the existing taxobox gives a suitable taxobox. I've added it here (see right) with a few tweaks. — Jts1882 |
talk 16:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Okay, I guess that's the more useful outcome. I'll do that instead.—Snoteleks (
Talk) 17:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I just noticed, what about
Heliozoa? The (non-automatic) taxobox clearly shows Actinopoda and Sarcodina as parent taxa even though those are also obsolete. Where should we draw the line? I think maybe
polyphyletic ones such as Heliozoa could retain a non-automatic taxobox, while
paraphyletic ones that still "fit" in the Tree of Life (such as
Apusozoa,
Eolouka,
crustaceans, etc.) can be transferred into the automatic system. Does that sound good? —Snoteleks (
Talk) 17:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
What to do with obsolete and paraphyletic taxa is a difficult question. I think this depends on coverage. Some are clearly notably like
Protozoa. Others like
Apusozoa and
Heliozoa are less clear but I think there is a good cases for articles, although there will always be a question as to whether they would be better covered in a section of a broader article, e.g. as
Sarcodina is covered in
Amoeba. In the case of
Diacentrida and
Sarcomastigota I think they should be discussed somewhere, but this might best as part of another article. Perhaps there could be a section in
Protozoa dealing with Cavalier-Smith's more recent classifications.
On taxoboxes, I think if a taxon is considered significant enough to be an article it should have a taxobox. I see no reason not to use the automated taxobox system as this helps consistency between articles. It also allows us to get an overview of the classifications with the
taxonomy browser. Clearly I have a bias here, but the bias is why I made the effort to write the script. — Jts1882 |
talk 09:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, in my opinion there is no good reason not to use an automatic taxobox and several advantages in doing so. However, with eukaryotes there are so many taxoboxes still using manual taxoboxes there are other priorities. I think getting the higher level taxa organised with consistent taxonomy templates should be the priority. That will make it easier to add taxoboxes at lower levels (less taxonomy templates to create). — Jts1882 |
talk 07:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Nice. The images are also available without labels. Strangely the zip files with the jpegs and svgs are missing three images which are available at high resolution in the pdfs (Chytrid, Choanoflagellate and Choanocyte). Perhaps this was an oversight. They also don't give high resolution images for CRuMS, higher plants, fungi and animal terminals from Fig 1 and the thumbnail file, but most of these aren't microbial. A shame they don't provide the thumbnails as separate files. — Jts1882 |
talk 11:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I have just written to the authors to let them know we are using their images and thank them for the initiative. I took the opportunity to ask about the unlabelled and missing images, also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 12:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)reply
A
requested move discussion has been initiated for
Wallaceina to be moved to
Wallacemonas. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion
here. —
RMCD bot 16:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)reply
To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{
bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up
Article alerts for this WikiProject.