Talk:Choanozoa

Primary research

Wikipedia deprecates the use of primary research articles, especially where, as here, the citation is to the recently-published opinion of one team of scientists. Policy is to rely instead on reliable review articles that summarize the field. That means that Wikipedia articles will not fluctuate rapidly through the vicissitudes of primary papers, but must wait, perhaps a few years, for the field to stabilize. I propose, therefore, to revert the changes here and in other articles, where primary sources have been relied upon exclusively. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record, as discussed elsewhere, I think the Adl et al. (2018) update of their 2012 classification is enough of a review and sufficiently likely to be widely used to be acceptable here. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Cladogram

I'm uneasy about the WP:SYNTH involved in merging cladograms from two sources, as is the case at Choanozoa right now. If a sub-cladogram is out of date in the original, I think it's better to just reduce it to a single label, and then add the cladogram for this separately. But maybe I'm being too fastidious? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Borderline. If the bits fit together it's probably fine. I'm not keen on redlinked projects-for-the-future in phylogenetic trees, it always smells a bit primary to me. On the other hand there are sources and at least the tree gives some idea of the complexity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Now I've looked at the sources given (currently only refs 7, 8 and 8 are directly cited), I'm even less happy. The cladogram is a synthesis of multiple sources, as far as I can tell. Hehenberger et al. (2017) has the topology of the tree for Holozoa, but not all the clade names used, which must come from other sources.

@Jmv2009: have I missed the primary source for the cladogram? Can you please list all the sources used in drawing it here. I note you've added it to several other articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The authority of names of parent clades should also be on their respective pages. They are linked for a reason. Not ideal, if one takes the opinion that every page should be self contained.

On the holozoa side: filozoa : [1]
holozoa : [2]
On the Fungi side:
Fungi, Aphelida, Rozellomycota/Rozellomyceta : [3]
Cristidiscoidea: [4]
Cryptomycota, Opisthosporidia [5]
Note that with the latest insights, fungi actually emerged in the [Opisthosporidia], as discussed in it's article, rather than next to it. So cladistically it's included, but Opisthosporidia this way loses most of specificity of the original meaning, becoming equivalent to "Fungi".
I would object against removing these names, as the discussion of each node should be found at the wikipedia article of the specific node, and it should be easy to find it there. It's only semantics. Jmv2009 (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The issue, again, is not what might be sensible in another context, but what is allowed by policies here. WP:UGC: "In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source." More generally from WP:RS: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." So on my reading of policy, there should be references in an article to support all the non-obvious information in the article. Clade names are far from obvious or settled at present so should be supported. You could say something like "Cladogram based on ... with additional clade names from ..." There might then be an issue with SYNTH, but sourcing would be covered. (I don't think you really mean it's only semantics – semantics is meaning, and definitely need sourcing. It's "only" nomenclature, but in taxonomy, nomenclature isn't value-free and needs sourcing.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

There certainly is some extra work to do. Maybe hide the link name, just say "Link"? Right now the names are dual functionality(naming AND linking), but it is possible to separate them out. Tnx Jmv2009 (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

"In either case, these two groups are the only heterotrophs known to form colonies"

The heterotroph article says fungi are also heterotrophs, so either this or that is wrong.--Reciprocist (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)