Talk:Golden algae

Requested move
Golden alga → Golden algae … Rationale: common plural is better than uncommon singular; match other algae pages. Blocked by minor edit history at Golden algae. … Please share your opinion at Talk:Golden alga. --R. S. Shaw 21:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Support We should match the other algae pages. Evertype 15:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Moved. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 11:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Crysophyta
From user talk:Josh Grosse:

I have noticed your article on Golden Algae is a redirected from Chrysophyta. But your taxonomy box is not correctly indicating your text. From your article, you refer to the phylum Chrysophyta and NOT the class Chrysophyceae. If you want to have a look at the table of classifications you are welcome. Askewmind 02:29, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

You can see it more clearly at. That is why I changed the redirect earlier I thought the page was about Chrysophyceae only, and not general phylum Chrysophyta. So I think you should change your taxobox accordingly. --LexCorp 02:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry seems this is more up to date . --LexCorp 03:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Someone else changed the taxobox to give Chrysophyta instead of Chrysophyceae. This was a mistake on their part, since it is not compatible with including them in a division like Heterokontophyta, and I have reverted it.

However, this does not mean the Chrysophyta are a different group. They used to be more inclusive, including for instance the yellow-green algae and perhaps even diatoms, but these sets are paraphyletic. Nowadays when the division is still used, it tends to be identical to the Chrysophyceae, only promoted in rank. So it makes perfect sense that Chrysophyta would redirect here.

The classification of heterokonts in general is variable. I think the system given on that page does a reasonable job reflecting the sort of systems that are current, and the discussion at least gives the idea that it is not authoritative. However, I would be happy if you had any ideas about how to make the difficulties more transparent. Josh


 * Well I've been doing some searching and I think we could use this site Integrated Taxonomic Information System to consult on currently accepted taxonomy. granted there are bits and pieces that are debatable, but in lack of agreement within the community, the ITIS kees a standard reference for quoting until the comunity agrees to a change.


 * Even better, there is a template to use as the reference or source of infortation for example. What do you think? AskewMind 14:11, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the idea. We shouldn't blindly trust ITIS, which is sometimes idiosyncratic and is totally obsolete as far as protists are concerned. Right now we're using whatever system best reflects the current understanding of protistologists, as far as possible, and leaving out taxa where there is no consensus. It's true there are disagreements about the new systems, but to go from those to a system that nobody really accepts is a mistake. It might be more work to go through the different alternatives than to take one source as authoritative, but it's a lot more valuable. Note many of the currently accepted groups, like Amoebozoa and Euglenozoa, don't even show up under ITIS. Josh


 * Ok, I hear what you saying, then we have two options, we either try to set an agreed taxon (something corrected, taking into account the protist kingdom and maybe like you say, excluding the disputed entries) and maybe even build it onto wikispecies. Or we have to build our taxon from a reference source, after all wikipedia is a reference source, not a debate forum. We are not here to set canon, only to present know information.


 * Personally I would prefer to follow the first route, and since i'm no biologist ot taxonimist I would have rely on experts to decide what is correct. To be honest the taxonomy bussiness is all new to me. So if you think this is the right course, i would go for it. AskewMind 17:49, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Golden algae. 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/20080922122718/http://www.cs.cuc.edu/~tfutcher/Chrysophyta.html to http://www.cs.cuc.edu/~tfutcher/Chrysophyta.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Does the extensive history of taxonomy really belong here?
The page currently has *9* separate taxonomies, going back to the year 1914. This feels like a lot of unnecessary information for this page and would be a better fit for Wikispecies. Can we migrate most of these taxonomies there and decide on a single one to stick to, at least within the page and then refer to wikispecies for more detailed taxonomic analyses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daemyth (talk • contribs) 02:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)