Talk:Angomonas deanei

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Angomonas deanei. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304003750/http://taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl/TaxonTree.aspx?id=943 to http://taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl/TaxonTree.aspx?id=943
 * Added tag to http://www.taxareference.com/taxon.php?d=eukaryota&t=59799

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Taxoboxes
it seems to be the norm to have one taxobox per article – covering the single taxon covered in the article. I think it would be better to have a separate article on Kinetoplastibacterium crithidii. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Peter coxhead I was just fixing an error in the taxobox that was there. Maybe the candidatus shoudln't be bold in that case? YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, you removed a second taxobox. Didn't even realise that was there to be honest. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ah, sorry, I just saw that you had edited last and that the article showed up in a taxobox error-tracking category. Yes, it was the second taxobox that was causing the problem – it's actually quite tricky to set up taxoboxes for species with non-binomial names. I agree about bold. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

For the record, this is what I think the offending second taxobox was trying to show. You need to use. Whether the formatting is correct for a candidatus bacterial species I don't know.