Template talk:Rhizaria

Something very wrong here
This navbox is overcomplex and hard to maintain, embodying as it does one particular hypothesis about the phylogeny (leaving aside the explicit incertae sedis); and it should not contain redlinks. Basically it's trying to do far too much in a group that has been reorganised repeatedly. It occupies almost the whole height of a large screen, and presumably takes two screen heights on a laptop. Needs to be radically simplified. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed partly, the navbox is overly complicated and should be changed to strictly recognized clades such as written in Adl et al. 2019. It is currently portraying a load of paraphyletic subphyla described only by Cavalier-Smith, and it just doesn't make sense. But since when is the absence of redlinks a requirement? ☽ Snoteleks  ☾ ☽  Snoteleks  ☾ 11:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Great, glad we agree. Tom C-S did fantastic work stimulating everyone else to get into phylogenetic analysis, even if many of his suggestions have proven wrong. Redlinks have been non grata in templates since time immemorial, it's in our DNA. I expect it's enshrined in some policy or guideline somewhere but whatever the case, it's clearly not ideal having non-navigable features in a navigation box. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey there, it's been a long time but I finally got around to changing most of the outdated taxonomy in the template. But I realized there are too many red links, so I would rather wait until those red links are blued before further chhanges. —Snoteleks (Talk) 21:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Incertae sedis?
According to the template, gymnosphaerids are incertae sedis within Rhizaria, i. e. its phylogenetic position is unknown, but according to the article, it's in Filosa, aka Cercozoa. Are they really incertae sedis? Alfa-ketosav (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)