Wikipedia 10K Redux by Reagle from Starling archive. Bugs abound!!!
Authors include [[Josh Grosse]] and [[Andy Jewell]] Links should be
"[[Kingdom Animalia]]" rather than "Kingdom [[Animalia]]"''Strongly disagree. For one, it is annoying to always have to refer to the Kindom Animalia rather than the Animalia when you want to make a link. For two: some of the more prominent taxa, like Animalia or Cyprinidae, have precise rankings. But there are many whose position varies from scheme to scheme. I think it would be better to have a single page Rotifera rather than two pages, [Class Rotifera] and [Phylum Rotifera], one of whom merely sends to the other. And that's even a taxon with a well-defined position - what do you do for things like Bilateria?'' ''And again, as below, I am going to suggest that for cases where no clear name has developed for the group, we just use common ones. It might be a bit confusing to have a mix of common and Latin names, but that's what the literature does when no clear consensus has emerged, and it's less confusing than listing each group on five different pages. Plus some groups don't even have Latin names: Stramenopiles, Opisthokonts, Rosette agents...'' We need an easy english example by every entry. - ''When one exists, could be difficult for some things. :)'' ''Andy, I just noticed that you're treating Linnaean taxonomy as something seperate from phenetics, cladistics, and so forth. It's not supposed to be: most of the time, taxonomy gets changed to reflect evolution. For instance, the original Linnaean classification for Animalia had all invertebrates grouped into one class (phyla were invented later), and they were seperated out when it became clear they weren't directly related.'' ''I think what classifications we provide should probably reflect the best we have now, with seperate pages for obsolete taxa explaining what happened to them. And while a complete classification for everything would be nice, I don't think we should do that. Especially for the [[Monera]] and [[Protista]], where workers in the fields have actually stopped using ranks for the time being. There are too many tiny groups without relatives; noone wants to have independent phyla set up for each of ''Sticholonche'', ''Hyperamoeba'', ''Stephanopogon'', etc.'' ''For the same sort of reason, I'm not sure that it's a good idea to list all the supertaxa of each group. There are plenty of things out there where the lower taxonomy is stable but the higher is not. eg Tetras belongs to the Characidae, which is either in the suborder Characiformes of the order Cypriniformes, or in the order Characiformes. That difference can be explained on Characidae easily enough, but I'm not sure I'd want to repeat it for every genus.'' ''In short: I don't think we can have tidy categories like you had hoped. Whenever we can, we should make a nice clean list. But when such a thing doesn't exist, we'll just have to explain that the system is still a mess, and then provide the reader with subgroups and speculated relationships between them rather than subtaxa. :('' ''I don't mean to be too discouraging, though, so please don't take this as such. The system works especially well for invertebrates, for whom if you are interested I think the standard source is Brusca & Brusca's ''The invertebrates'' (textbooks all have lame titles). It has a taxonomy for each phylum, usually down to order and sometimes further. For vertebrates, everything is a mess outside of the mammals and birds, and the higher taxa in plants are kind-of up in the air, so I'm not sure what one should do. But a good thing to compare to would be the [http://phylogeny.arizona.edu Tree of Life].'' ''Btw, as a minor note: genus is a third declension noun, so it's plural is actually genera. Both genus and species names should always be italicized or de-italicized.'' ---- Special concerns: [[Prokaryotae]] - you say that this is a new form of [[Monera]] but I don't think that a majority has made the switch. There doesn't seem to be any reason to, and historically such names have tended to be ignored, at least (Protoctista, Chlorophycophyta, etc). A lot of workers tend to neglect the name altogether, since it seems to be polyphyletic. Any reason for choosing this form? [[Protista]] - the classification of protista has been changing a lot recently, and I think most people have more or less abandoned higher level Linnaean stuff for the time being. [[Euglenids]] have variously been grouped as a phylum or class and referred to as the Euglenida, Euglenophyta, Euglenophyceae, etc. Some of the groups you mention have been dropped entirely, especially the amoeboid ones, due to heavy polyphyly, and I'd been leaving those off and grouping by rough grades (flagellates, amoeboids, algae, etc). I would love to hear if you have any good ideas on what to do, since the flat list seems wrong and what I was doing seems clunky. [[Chordata]] - the current classification is awful and everybody hates it. The Agnatha, Osteichthyes, Amphibia, and Reptilia are all paraphyletic, and extinct forms are really hard to handle in them. They're standard, so we should mention them, but wikipedia doesn't have to organize itself on an obsolete and broken system if we don't want it to. Misc terms - aren't phyla of plants normally referred to as ''divisions''? The former is what Linnaeus did, but he himself said he wished he'd done the latter and there's been some effort to change.