Template talk:Taxonomy/Eukaryota

Taxonomic rank Neomura is of controversy
Though there is little controversy that eukaryotes and archaeans are relatively closely related, the taxonomical name Neomura is not widely accepted. I suggest it not be included in this template.  Sky 6t  02:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been removed, before I could get to it. I doubt that will itself be controversial.  If so, I would controvert a reversion.  :-)   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 March 2020
I would like to make a request to have the "Domain: Eukaryota" always displayed in the "Template:Taxonomy" for the taxon "Rigifilida". Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I think  knows things and whether this is desirable or even possible. Izno (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * always_display can only be placed in the taxonomy template of the taxon to which it applies. So you couldn't make it only display just for a hierarchy starting with the clade Rigifilida; if yes were added here, it would cause the domain to be displayed in every eukaryote taxobox, for which I'm sure there's no consensus.
 * On the other hand, it does look odd for the hierarchy to end with "Clade: Opimoda". The solution, which I'm happy to implement, is:
 * Create a new taxonomy template, Template:Taxonomy/Eukaryota/displayed with yes.
 * Set the parent at Template:Taxonomy/Opimoda to "Eukaryota/displayed" instead of "Eukaryota".
 * This will mean that any automated taxobox whose classification currently ends at "Clade: Opimoda" will change to end at "Domain: Eukaryota".
 * However, the system at present wouldn't recognize "Eukaryota/displayed" as a "colour-setting taxon", because it doesn't strip off the qualifier, and so flags an error. I need to fix that - which is desirable anyway – first. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Peter coxhead (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 December 2021
Can i pls get to edit

Pls 213.160.227.24 (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Templates may only be edited by registered users. After you've registered and made some regular edits to articles and such, you can then apply to become a template editor, if that's what you want to do. Happy Holidays to you and yours!  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 12:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 May 2022
Change Eukaryote to Dumbaryote. It has been scientifically proven that this term is correct. 203.170.10.38 (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Move-protection-shackle.svg Not done: page move requests should be made at Requested moves. Declined as wrong venue with no comment as to the merits. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  03:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

lion
62.30.188.114 (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bestagon ⬡ 13:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Domain:ekrutyka 2607:FB91:1974:1097:B0F6:5472:F072:A398 (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

South American rattlesnake
Subspecies: C.D.terfficus 2607:FB91:1974:1097:B0F6:5472:F072:A398 (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 September 2023
A eukaryote is a member of the domain "Eukarya" not "Eukaryota"; other old names include "Eucarya". Please use "Eukarya" as the current domain name. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Since there is no taxonomic reference listed in this template, it is challenging to determine what the current accepted term is. The article lists "Eukaryota" with "(Chatton, 1925) Whittaker & Margulis, 1978" as references, but I do not see those references listed in the article's sources. I see the later proposal by Margulis (1996), but no indication that the proposed new name is widely accepted. The article's sections on naming of the domain need to be cleaned up and properly sourced. I recommend a discussion on the talk page.  – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)