Contents

Template talk:Taxonomy/Eukaryota

Template:Taxonomy/Eukaryotaispermanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Tree of Life This template is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life 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.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles Molecular Biology: MCB This template is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles This template is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force.

Though there is little controversy that eukaryotes and archaeans are relatively closely related, the taxonomical name Neomura is not widely accepted. I suggest it not be included in this template. Sky6t 02:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been removed, before I could get to it. I doubt that will itself be controversial. If so, I would controvert a reversion.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to make a request to have the "Domain: Eukaryota" always displayed in the "Template:Taxonomy" for the taxon "Rigifilida". Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. I think Peter coxhead knows things and whether this is desirable or even possible. Izno (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Videsh Ramsahai and Izno: |always_display= can only be placed in the taxonomy template of the taxon to which it applies. So you couldn't make it only display just for a hierarchy starting with the clade Rigifilida; if |always_display=yes were added here, it would cause the domain to be displayed in every eukaryote taxobox, for which I'm sure there's no consensus.

On the other hand, it does look odd for the hierarchy to end with "Clade: Opimoda". The solution, which I'm happy to implement, is:

1. Create a new taxonomy template, Template:Taxonomy/Eukaryota/displayed with |always_display=yes.
2. Set the parent at Template:Taxonomy/Opimoda to "Eukaryota/displayed" instead of "Eukaryota".

This will mean that any automated taxobox whose classification currently ends at "Clade: Opimoda" will change to end at "Domain: Eukaryota".

However, the system at present wouldn't recognize "Eukaryota/displayed" as a "colour-setting taxon", because it doesn't strip off the qualifier, and so flags an error. I need to fix that - which is desirable anyway – first. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Peter coxhead (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can i pls get to edit

Pls 213.160.227.24 (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Templates may only be edited by registered users. After you've registered and made some regular edits to articles and such, you can then apply to become a template editor, if that's what you want to do. Happy Holidays to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 12:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit requesttoTemplate:Taxonomy/Dumbaryote has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Eukaryote to Dumbaryote. It has been scientifically proven that this term is correct. 203.170.10.38 (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Declined as wrong venue with no comment as to the merits. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

62.30.188.114 (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bestagon ⬡ 13:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Domain:ekrutyka 2607:FB91:1974:1097:B0F6:5472:F072:A398 (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subspecies: C.D.terfficus 2607:FB91:1974:1097:B0F6:5472:F072:A398 (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A eukaryote is a member of the domain "Eukarya" not "Eukaryota"; other old names include "Eucarya". Please use "Eukarya" as the current domain name. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. Since there is no taxonomic reference listed in this template, it is challenging to determine what the current accepted term is. The article lists "Eukaryota" with "(Chatton, 1925) Whittaker & Margulis, 1978" as references, but I do not see those references listed in the article's sources. I see the later proposal by Margulis (1996), but no indication that the proposed new name is widely accepted. The article's sections on naming of the domain need to be cleaned up and properly sourced. I recommend a discussion on the talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]