Talk:Sainouridae

Protista Low‑importance

	This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microbiology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology 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.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taxonomy

@Snoteleks: Check the links in the taxonbar. There seems to be ongoing discrepancy on the taxonomy here. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wikispecies taxonomy seems to be out of date. Is that what you mean? —Snoteleks (Talk) 14:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look at them all: GBIF, IRMNG, and WoRMS. Wikispecies aligns with WoRMS. IRNMG is similar but not of the same level of granularity, but perhaps intended to represent the same. GBIF just punts. However, a change in taxonomy in Wikipedia articles is usually only done after some of the 3rd party sources start following what is published in the primary sources. You are aking changes based only on primary sourcing... that's not good. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but WoRMS, GBIF or IRNMG are not valid taxonomic publications, especially when it comes to protist classification. The majority of protist information within those databases is outdated and completely obsolete. I am just implementing changes based on peer-reviewed publications, just like in every other article. Otherwise, we'd still be treating stuff like Chromista as a real kingdom, when the scientific community has long rejected it. I understand that you're concerned by changes based exclusively on primary sourcing, but ignoring primary sources in favour of very unreliable third party sources is (at least in my opinion) detrimental. In addition, at WP:ToL we have already agreed that taxonomic revisions of small taxa like these will only be implemented after we see no disagreement from other authors after 3-4 years (see this discussion), and it has already been more than 5 years (will be 6 in April) since this group's revision. —Snoteleks (Talk) 14:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, those databases (should) rely on primary sources for all of their information. —Snoteleks (Talk) 14:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]