Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

Not every paraphyletic groups can be redefinable as monophyletic to cladistically include their paraphyletically excluded groups, also I would like to say that I don't like @Hemiauchenia being rude to me, sure, it's kinda my fault because of the multiple mistakes I made on Wikipedia, but still, I don't think I deserve rude message over the multiple mistakes I made on Wikipedia, he should have talked to me in a polite way about the multiple mistakes I made on Wikipedia, am I the only person who doesn't think that someone deserves rude message over their multiple mistakes they made on Wikipedia? Maybe I am Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

How old are you?^[sarcasm] — Snoteleks (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, please don't be rude to me, thank you Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Snoteleks: You should not have asked that question. @Cantthinkofanyusername: Be very careful about what identifying information about yourself you post in Wikipedia, especially if you wish to preserve your anonymity. - Donald Albury 23:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your advice and thanks for being polite to me, you're much politer than Hemiauchenia, just so you know Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@Cantthinkofanyusername Please, fellow editor, I kindly request you are more patient and thoughtful with your edits. We would greatly appreciate it. I know that you do not mean bad, but other editors have found your edits disruptive. What you may perceive as rudeness is the result of them seeing your message repeated across many pages, which is normally a sign of vandalism or other nefarious activities. I understand that you feel you have been the victim of rudeness, but it is in reality a measured response to warn you from being disruptive. They are humans too, and as such do not have infinite patience, but they are still trying to approach you with civility. The best course of action is to inspect why this is the case, before repeating the messages. Thank you in advance — Snoteleks (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your advice and thanks for being polite to me, you're also much politer than Hemiauchenia, just so you know Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

You need to stop using that tagline. It feels like you are casting aspersions. Donald Albury 22:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, I think I had been somewhat sharp with them earlier, but I don't think bringing up the matter over and over again is particularly productive or pushing this discussion to a resolution. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I understand Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I mean, yeah, but casting aspersions wasn't actually my intention, I just wanted to appreciate someone for being polite to me, but I will stop using that tagline Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Cantthinkofanyusername: to answer your question, {{Paraphyletic group}} is primarily designed to be used for groups where there are indeed traditional definitions in use that exclude groups that would make them monophyletic. Classic examples are reptiles and monkeys. The taxoboxes in each case target the taxon that is the subject of the article. Uses like that in protist are odd, because there is no monophyletic group that corresponds to this name, so these uses require alternative wording. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts Lizards, Scientific classification ...

Lizards
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Reptilia
Order:	Squamata
Suborder:	Lacertilia
Groups included
Anguimorpha Dibamidae Gekkota Iguanomorpha Lacertoidea Scincomorpha †Mosasauroidea
Groups excluded (but included in cladistical analysis)
Serpentes Amphisbaenia

Close

I've never been happy with the "Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa" header. It's just too long for a taxobox header. I suggest a change to use a short header with a smaller subheader. I've used smaller text in bold, but an alternative would be normal sized text not bolded.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:55, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I just randomly came across a series of articles on gastropod taxonomy and noticed some issues with them regarding notability and independence that I wanted to flag here for discussion. Note that I am not that deep into the world of malacology, so if there is any context or nuance I am missing, please let me know!

• Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Ponder & Lindberg, 1997) relies on two sources, one of which is the work that is the subject of the article (a non-independent primary source) and the other of which is an independent source (but does not actually address the article topic as a whole)
• Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005) relies on four sources, one of which is the work that is the subject of the article, one of which is a later paper on gastropod taxonomy by the same authors (arguably a primary or secondary but nonetheless non-independent source), one of which is a reference to MolluscaBase (of which Philippe Bouchet is an editor, so also non-independent) through WoRMS, and finally a single (seemingly?) independent source.
• Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet et al., 2017) relies solely on the work that is the subject of the article.

Pinging @JoJan, @Snek01, and @Invertzoo as creators/major contributors to the above articles. Please know that I mean no disrespect and do not wish to diminish the hard work that went into these articles (they are honestly quite impressive), just address the sourcing issues to bring these articles in line with WP:NPOV and WP:GNG. The actual text of the articles seems high quality, but I think that there is a better way of presenting this information to avoid NPOV and notability concerns. My first thought was to merge these articles (perhaps also with the article Changes in the taxonomy of gastropods since 2005?) into one or two articles on gastropod taxonomy and its history, but I'm keen to hear what others think. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:21, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad this is being talked about. I am the main contributor of the 2017 taxonomy article (perhaps you pinged Snek01 by mistake?). It became an interest of mine in my early Wikipedia days because it was very incomplete and I had access to the source; this was before I even began editing prose, and it seemed easy enough to contribute by simply adding to the list. After a while, copypasting hundreds of taxon names manually from a single source felt tiresome and silly, for the reasons you stated. I would much rather merge every one of these into a common Gastropod classification article, perhaps with an overview going over the major changes through the years followed by a fully updated list. — Snoteleks (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Whoops, yes, I completely missed you, apologies - Snek01 is technically the creator of the 2017 article, but you contributed 95% of the page content :P I only used mw:WWT? to check the main contributors of the first two articles and then just saw that Snek01 was the page creator of the 2017 and assumed it was more or less the same situation as the previous two articles, my mistake! Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:48, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Ohh I see, what a funny coincidence haha. I assumed it was the slightly similar usernames. And yes, I went pretty overboard with that article... I remember my hands cramped from typing brackets and asterisks lol — Snoteleks (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

The analyses should be merged with Changes in the taxonomy of gastropods since 2005, perhaps that can be rescoped to Changes in the taxonomy of gastropods or even Taxonomy of gastropods. However, I wouldn't merge the entire taxonomies into a single article. If the older taxonomies are to be kept, preserving them as spin-out lists would be better. CMD (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

For comparison, Category:Systems of plant taxonomy includes the analogous articles relating to pteridophyte (Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group) and seed plant taxonomy.Lavateraguy (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Having dedicated over 20 years to Project: Gastropods, I have witnessed firsthand the drastic shifts in gastropod taxonomy. In the early days, a universally accepted digital standard was nonexistent; some platforms even relied on the antiquated classifications of Johannes Thiele, leading to frequent contradictions between websites.

The landscape changed significantly in 1997 when Ponder and Lindberg published their taxonomy, providing a much-needed sense of relief and structure. However, the field underwent a serious overhaul in 2005 with the work of Bouchet & Rocroi, which introduced the concept of the clade. This shift required an immense effort to update and modernize thousands of articles. By 2017, the framework evolved yet again, returning to a more traditional Linnean binomial system. This current taxonomy is, to my knowledge, the only one universally accepted by WoRMS, our primary reference.

Since that time, gastropod classification has continued to undergo significant changes, occasionally resulting in the complete restructuring of families and genera, as seen in the Lymnaeidae. Given this history, it would not be surprising if a new, comprehensive taxonomy is published in the coming years to encompass the latest molecular and morphological data.

I strongly believe these taxonomic articles should be maintained in their current form, as they serve as a vital historical record of these scientific shifts. Merging them would erase that historical context and represent a massive undertaking for very little conceptual gain.

Since our work relies on WoRMS (and Molluscabase)—which itself reflects the most current scientific consensus—I believe our best course of action is to continue our established workflow. JoJan (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the content. The question is whether these need to be separate articles, or whether they would be better as sections within a single article with a title like "Historical taxonomy of the Gastropoda". Peter coxhead (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Ditto. Merging the articles does not erase the historical record of the scientific shifts. In fact, there really is no prose that delves into the shifts and their history; all three articles are mere lists. They should be merged and the historical outline should be developed in prose. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. @JoJan's summary is actually a great example of how a single article (AKA all text in one place) would be the best way for people to understand the history of the field. Barbalalaika 🐌 08:56, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, this group of articles presently fails to meet Wikipedia's notability and neutrality policies, and that's an issue that needs to be addressed. If these articles are to be maintained in anything like their current state they need to be reworked to cite multiple independent, reliable secondary sources that establish the subject's notability. Echoing Snoteleks's comment below, these articles are, at present, essentially just lists republishing the relevant works without the appropriate secondary analysis or evidence of notability expected of an encyclopedia. I want to see the informational content of these articles maintained on English Wikipedia, but leaving these articles as-is is not an option - the established workflow appears to be falling short of multiple core content policies. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:12, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

As a data point, citation counts from Google Scholar for the 3 papers are 873, 1569 and 942. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

The Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet et al., 2017) is widely considered the gold standard in malacology. Its notability is established not just by its massive scope, but by its universal adoption by the scientific community and major biological databases.

According to AI, as of early 2026, the work has garnered over 600 direct citations in peer-reviewed journals. In the field of taxonomy, this is an exceptionally high number for a publication less than a decade old, indicating it is a "highly influenced" foundational text.

Various editorials and review articles within the Journal of Molluscan Studies (published by the Malacological Society of London) refer to the 2017 work as the "successor" to the 2005 Bouchet & Rocroi system, marking it as the definitive current classification.

Recent studies (e.g., in Taylor & Francis and Cambridge University Press journals) on specific clades like Pleurotomariida or Truncatelloidea cite Bouchet et al. (2017) as the mandatory starting point for any modern phylogenetic discussion.

I think this shows enough the notability of this article. JoJan (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

According to AI really bro? I expected better than this. You're an admin and have been on this website for over 20 years, and yet you have not understood Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual,_guidebook,_textbook,_or_scientific_journal and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Just saying "it's notable and important" without actually providing any significant coverage or improving the article at all is not a very convincing argument. I don't disagree that the subject of these articles are likely notable - if I thought these topics were simply non-notable I would have just taken them to AfD instead of starting this discussion - rather, I'm raising the lack of independent secondary sources in the articles as an issue to be fixed. As Hemiauchenia notes, the current state of these articles is little more than a republication of the relevant works, in violation of WP:NOT. If these topics are so important, it shouldn't be difficult for you to improve them to meet basic sourcing standards, no? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I support the merging of all of these articles into a single "Taxonomy of Gastropoda" article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep it as it is. I fully agree with @JoJan in this. All of these articles are notable and they are crucial for the Project. They are as important as for example Systema Naturae, Species Plantarum, Systema Vegetabilium, etc., while no one would even dare to suggest merging them! --Snek01 (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

They are clear and blatant violations of WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information 1# Summary-only descriptions of works. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

There is a WP:OR/WP:V issue with the 1997 taxonomy. Ponder & Lindberg did not only not use ranked taxa (noted on the talk page back in 2010, and also in the article), but they did not produce a classification. They did introduce some clade names, but did not rank them, other than implicitly by choice of termination. They're not explicitly PhyloCode names either. The paper remains an influential (=> notable) paper, which presumably (malacology is definitely not my field, and I haven't seen any of the literature) has served as a source of a backbone phylogeny for taxonomic work over the next decade. At best this needs a title change and citations for the classification given, but I think it needs a more drastic rework - paper, cladogram, reception - or even deletion.

The other two pages are more strictly analogous to APG IV, MSW3, and other influential taxonomic systems, and I think that they should be kept. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Specific name (zoology) be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: A proposal to merge with Binomial name has been introduced as an alternative course of action. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey guys. I started Draft:Template:Article templates/Species (archaea) some time ago, trying my hand on making an article template for User sandbox+, but I've put off this project for so long that... I kind of forgot what I was doing here. But, my ambition here was to provide a means to standardize the articles on taxa – particularly on prokaryotes, starting with Archaea species. My plan was that, after I finish the Species (archaea) template, I make the -(bacteria) counterpart by changing certain elements of Species (archaea), and then after that, making the Genus- and Taxon- counterparts to each by simply modifying the respective Species- templates; the Taxon article template is to be a much more generic template that can go with any taxonomic rank. I don't remember where I saw it, but there's a rule about when and how to write a species or genus wiki article (hence Species-, Genus- and Taxon-), and I've written comment tags within this template pertaining to that.

I'm sharing this now because it hasn't been edited in 5 months and, apparently, draft templates get deleted in 6 months of zero activity. It'll be a shame for this work to go to waste, and my hyperfixation is currently set somewhere else; I'm not scummy enough to just dummy edit this to alleviate looming deletion, only for me to forget about it and leave it in limbo again. So, I'm passing this project on to the broader Wikipedia biology community, at its incomplete state. I'm open for questions. CheckNineEight (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

If no one shows immediate interest and you intend to return to it, but don't know when, you can move it to your user space, e.g. at User:CheckNineEight:Template:Article templates/Species (archaea).  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:15, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you share this with the other active editors of microbiology articles? I remember there was one member (forgot their name) that noticed this work, but I told them back then that it's not ready for sharing (which might've been unnecessary, honestly). CheckNineEight (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Race (biology) be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Heliorapha § Requested move 1 May 2026. Jako96 (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Family (biology) to the page Family (disambiguation)#Science has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 9 § Family (biology) until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: This is the latest follow up to a series of RMs that resulted in Family (taxonomy) and Race (taxonomy) being moved from the old page titles with '(biology)' as the disambiguator. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I've compiled (for whatever reason) an extensive (if not exhaustive) list of pages that were affected by WikiEdu editors in the past few months. Feel free to check on these pages if they are within your field of interest. Anthropophoca (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Kingdom (biology) be moved to Kingdom (taxonomy), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: This is a requested move for multiple pages –

• Kingdom (biology) → Kingdom (taxonomy)
• Class (biology) → Class (taxonomy)
• Order (biology) → Order (taxonomy)
• Domain (biology) → Domain (taxonomy)
• Tribe (biology) → Tribe (taxonomy)
• Section (biology) → Section (taxonomy)

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Domain (biology) to the article Domain (taxonomy) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 18 § Domain (biology) until a consensus is reached. – Scyrme (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Sponge be moved to Sea sponge, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Type locality (biology)#Requested move 26 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Trypanosoma evansi § Requested move 28 May 2026. Jako96 (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Phaeodarea § Requested move 28 May 2026. Jako96 (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Amphiesmenoptera § Template-protected edit request on 28 May 2026. Jako96 (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Dicondylia § Template-protected edit request on 28 May 2026. Jako96 (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Cyclorrhapha § Template-protected edit request on 28 May 2026. Jako96 (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Helkesida § Requested move 7 June 2026. Jako96 (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tetrahelia § Requested move 7 June 2026. Jako96 (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)