Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protista

WikiProject Protista

Main pageTalkTaxoboxesArticle requestsNew articles

Twitter coverage

Today I created a social media account for sharing this WikiProject's news, if anyone is interested the link is @WikiProtista. I plan on sharing mainly two things: 1) newly created articles, with at least a brief mention, and 2) newly GA-nominated articles, with a more elaborate thread. All suggestions are welcome! I also made a custom icon which I will soon upload to Wikimedia. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

New icon!

Wikipedia logo filled with silhouettes of various protists

We officially have a new icon for the project! Courtesy of me through paint.NET and openly available illustrations by Keeling & Eglit. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

1 source

Many articles only use a single source—often WoRMS. I started tagging them with {{one source}}. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

If I have the Petscan search set up properly, there are currently 113 articles tagged with {{one source}} under Category:Protist taxa.  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Your effort is much appreciated. — Snoteleks (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

"(protist)": replace or keep

There are often more specific disambiguation possibilities than just saying "(protist)". E. g. Yogsothoth belongs to the centrohelids (I do not know whether one shall even retain the disambiguation here, for there is nothing else called Yogsothoth (without anything separating Yog and Sothoth)). Shall one keep the "(protist)" disambiguations as is, or shall we use clades (where possible), e. g. renaming "Yogsothoth (protist)" to "Yogsothoth (centrohelid)"? Alfa-ketosav (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

(protist) is more readily recognizable than any term for subgroups of protists, and keeping disambiguators used in article titles standardized is more difficult if there is a proliferation of different terms. Plantdrew (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

(protist) leads to less confusion, as it is a less specific term than any clade. I think it should be an established rule, unless there's more than one protist with the same name, in which case we can suggest (protozoa) and (alga) if it fits, or (clade) and (clade) if it doesn't. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Deletion of Malawimonada Kingdom

I think the Malawimonada kingdom should be deleted, because it's not generally used. Jako96 (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

What exactly do you think should be deleted? Class Malawimonadea is accepted and the article title is Malawimonad, which doesn't imply a particular rank. The taxonomy template can be updated with out deleting any articles. Plantdrew (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps they refer to the mention of kingdom Malawimonada in the taxobox? — Snoteleks (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I referred to the kingdom Malawimonada in the taxobox. And I know taxonomy templates can be updated without deleting any articles. Jako96 (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I took it down, because it was based on a 2017 proposal that was never officially published anywhere. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

It was officially published but it is VERY HARD to find it on the published article. I had a hard time finding it. But yeah, what I wanted happened. Thanks! Jako96 (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you link to that publication? I've only ever seen the 2017 bioRxiv version. — Snoteleks (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Ohhhhh, sorry. It was only on bioRxiv. It was never officially published. Jako96 (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Same here, I've not seen the published paper.

I still wouldn't use the kingdom in the taxobox. The name is redundant with the phylum and it's the not widely accepted as kingdom. In general, apart from the traditional kingdoms, the use of kingdom is too variable to be useful.  —  Jts1882 | talk  17:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)