Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

Lizards
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Reptilia
Order:	Squamata
Suborder:	Lacertilia
Groups included
	Anguimorpha; Dibamidae; Gekkota; Iguanomorpha; Lacertoidea; Scincomorpha; †Mosasauroidea;
Groups excluded (but included in cladistical analysis)
	Serpentes; Amphisbaenia;

WikiProject Tree of Life

Main page

Talk

Article template

Taxonomic resources

Taxoboxes

Participants

Article requests

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Tree of Life and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Shortcuts

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72: 45 days

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at The Signpost on 26 December 2011 and 27 December 2019.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 45 days are automatically archived by .

Why is "Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa" the default label for paraphyletic groups?

Not every paraphyletic groups can be redefinable as monophyletic to cladistically include their paraphyletically excluded groups, also I would like to say that I don't like @Hemiauchenia being rude to me, sure, it's kinda my fault because of the multiple mistakes I made on Wikipedia, but still, I don't think I deserve rude message over the multiple mistakes I made on Wikipedia, he should have talked to me in a polite way about the multiple mistakes I made on Wikipedia, am I the only person who doesn't think that someone deserves rude message over their multiple mistakes they made on Wikipedia? Maybe I am Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How old are you?^[sarcasm] — Snoteleks (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't be rude to me, thank you Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Snoteleks: You should not have asked that question. @Cantthinkofanyusername: Be very careful about what identifying information about yourself you post in Wikipedia, especially if you wish to preserve your anonymity. - Donald Albury 23:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your advice and thanks for being polite to me, you're much politer than Hemiauchenia, just so you know Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cantthinkofanyusername Please, fellow editor, I kindly request you are more patient and thoughtful with your edits. We would greatly appreciate it. I know that you do not mean bad, but other editors have found your edits disruptive. What you may perceive as rudeness is the result of them seeing your message repeated across many pages, which is normally a sign of vandalism or other nefarious activities. I understand that you feel you have been the victim of rudeness, but it is in reality a measured response to warn you from being disruptive. They are humans too, and as such do not have infinite patience, but they are still trying to approach you with civility. The best course of action is to inspect why this is the case, before repeating the messages. Thank you in advance — Snoteleks (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your advice and thanks for being polite to me, you're also much politer than Hemiauchenia, just so you know Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop using that tagline. It feels like you are casting aspersions. Donald Albury 22:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I think I had been somewhat sharp with them earlier, but I don't think bringing up the matter over and over again is particularly productive or pushing this discussion to a resolution. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, yeah, but casting aspersions wasn't actually my intention, I just wanted to appreciate someone for being polite to me, but I will stop using that tagline Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cantthinkofanyusername: to answer your question, {{Paraphyletic group}} is primarily designed to be used for groups where there are indeed traditional definitions in use that exclude groups that would make them monophyletic. Classic examples are reptiles and monkeys. The taxoboxes in each case target the taxon that is the subject of the article. Uses like that in protist are odd, because there is no monophyletic group that corresponds to this name, so these uses require alternative wording. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been happy with the "Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa" header. It's just too long for a taxobox header. I suggest a change to use a short header with a smaller subheader. I've used smaller text in bold, but an alternative would be normal sized text not bolded. — Jts1882 | talk 13:55, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Kingdom (biology) § Requested move 10 May 2026

An editor has requested that Kingdom (biology) be moved to Kingdom (taxonomy), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a requested move for multiple pages –

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Domain (biology)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Domain (biology) to the article Domain (taxonomy) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 18 § Domain (biology) until a consensus is reached. – Scyrme (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Sponge § Requested move 22 May 2026

An editor has requested that Sponge be moved to Sea sponge, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Type locality (biology)#Requested move 26 May 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Type locality (biology)#Requested move 26 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Trypanosoma evansi § Requested move 28 May 2026

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Trypanosoma evansi § Requested move 28 May 2026. Jako96 (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Phaeodarea § Requested move 28 May 2026

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Phaeodarea § Requested move 28 May 2026. Jako96 (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Amphiesmenoptera § Template-protected edit request on 28 May 2026

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Amphiesmenoptera § Template-protected edit request on 28 May 2026. Jako96 (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Dicondylia § Template-protected edit request on 28 May 2026

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Dicondylia § Template-protected edit request on 28 May 2026. Jako96 (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Cyclorrhapha § Template-protected edit request on 28 May 2026

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Cyclorrhapha § Template-protected edit request on 28 May 2026. Jako96 (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Helkesida § Requested move 7 June 2026

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Helkesida § Requested move 7 June 2026. Jako96 (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Tetrahelia § Requested move 7 June 2026

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tetrahelia § Requested move 7 June 2026. Jako96 (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Category for species with published genome assemblies?

Many species articles are now beginning to include genomics sections as chromosome-level and telomere-to-telomere genome assemblies are published. There doesn’t appear to be an easy way to discover which species already have published genome assemblies documented on Wikipedia.

Would a maintenance or content category such as “Species with published genome assemblies” be useful, or is there a better mechanism that would fit existing Tree of Life practices?

Currently, there are these pages:

Category:Lists of sequenced genomes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_sequenced_genomes

But I don't think these pages are easy to maintain.

23:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC) francis (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]