User talk:C8-B5

Rearrangements on classification templates
Look, it doesn't mean that when one new study is published we should immediately follow that study, remember that here in Wikipedia we should stay as neutral as possible? That also implies in classification, also, if we were to follow certain studies, we normally follow the ones with the most consensus, whether it's a new one or not, but definitely not to old as well. Jurassic Classic 767 (talk &#124; contribs) 09:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Your contributions
While your rearrangements to taxonomy templates based on the latest studies are good, they shouldn't wholesale replace the results of earlier studies. For example, when a family of taxon has been recovered in a position different from earlier studies, you may add the taxon to the new position, but you shouldn't remove the earlier listing. However, if you really want to publish the results of the new studies, you can learn to make cladograms using the template, then add the cladograms to the pages of the taxa themselves. Hope this interests you. Atlantis536 (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)