User talk:J.H.McDonnell

fossil taxa & forams
Hello JM,

Thanks for contributing so much to the encyclopedia. Many groups of extinct creatures have needed articles, and I'm glad that someone with knowledge and access to the literature has started or expanded them. The nautiloids are among my favorite organisms and I especially appreciate your contribution to their articles.

Your insider's perspective on the classification of forams is valuable. Although I am skeptical of ranks in systematics, and some systematists have abandoned them, I respect that their use continues. In recent years there has been a tendency to elevate the ranks of protist groups above those that have applied traditionally. For instance, Modern Foraminifera edited by Barun K. Sen Gupta, regards Foraminifera as a class within the phylum Granuloreticulosa. The classification of forams within Rhizaria has resulted from molecular phylogeny, which seems to have revealed affinities among larger groups that morphology could not.

We wikipedians may always debate what ranks to assign to taxa, and what taxa to highlight in the taxobox. But studies over the last few years have consistently found the forams to lie within Rhizaria and not Amoebozoa. Hence, I suggest restoring the taxoboxes for the various foraminiferan subgroups to Rhizaria instead of Amoebozoa until some other consensus emerges.

Cheers, Cephal-odd (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Bathyteuthis abyssicola
I created Bathyteuthis abyssicola to accommodate the information you added to Bathyteuthis. Hope you're okay with this. Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I found some images and added them to the articles. Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Taxonomy of gastropods
Hello J.H.McDonnell, only 2005 by Bouchet & Rocroi taxonomy of gastropods (or newer taxonomy) is accepted for gastropods on wikipedia. Per Template:WikiProject Gastropods and per WikiProject Gastropods. This is the only way how to categorize and organize articles. If you will get newer sources for taxonomy of gastropods, feel free to let us know at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods to keep taxonomy up to date. Thank you. Have a nice day. --Snek01 (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Morrowites
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Morrowites, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://fcdallas.wordpress.com/2008/02. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

taxonomy of gastropods
Hello, I have tried to answer to your questions at Talk:Changes in the taxonomy of gastropods since 2005 and I have tried to explain, why only the newest sources are not always the best ones. I would like to say, that I do not prefer any author or any taxonomy. If you have any questions, feel free to ask or share your opinion about taxonomy sources at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods. Thank you. Have a nice day. --Snek01 (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Section headers
Please stop putting unneeded marks, such as dashes or italicizing, in the "References" section headers for the articles you edit. Theses markups are againts the Manual of Style for articles. Also please don't abbreviate the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology to "the treatise" or similar as most readers will not know what it is. Write the articles as much as possible for people who do not have a grounding in ammonite paleontology.-- Kev min  § 15:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you prefer response here, let me start off by saying, Hi Kevmin. So, based on your user page, you too have an interest in geology and paleontology, with pages covering plants, arthropods, and vertebrates. What, no anthozoa, brachiopods, or echinoderms. Your suite is a little broader than mine, which primarily concentrates on fossil cephalopods. Do you consider yourself a true geologist and/or paleontologist, even in an amateur. I know people who are well versed and competent in their field of interest who are amateurs in the truest sense of the word. In fact right know I truthfully function as an amateur.


 * Now for your comment. I respectfully disagree. What you advocate may be common practice but I found nothing in the manual of style to indicate anything regarding section headers other than the preference for using level 2 font size. Nothing regarding extra marks or font style. But then I come from the old school which says that if something isn't explicitly prohibited, its implicitly permitted. I would however accept the argument that it's too out or norm (section headers with dashes) and that it looks too independent.


 * In looking at the most recent 16 contributors to the Manual of style it is apparent that the comments are simple the opinions of average Wikipedians just like the rest of us, even if well grounded in proper written English. I'm not suggesting we simply ignore the suggestions. For the most part they seem very good. But let's remember, Wikipedia is organized from the ground up, not the top down, and that these are simply suggestions of our peers.  They are valid only so long as a sufficient number of us concur.


 * By the way, what got you to Crucilobiceras in the first place?


 * cheers J.H.McDonnell (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Good morning, while there is not a specific reference the addition of other characters to headers this line in the section headers entry is relevant: "Spaced or unspaced multiple equal signs are the style markup for headings. The triple apostrophes (' ' ') that make words appear in boldface are not used in headings."
 * That line in conjunction with the multiple different editors who have removed the addition characters you have added to reference section headers, plus the lack of extraneous characters in good and featured level articles should be an indication that they are not to be used.-- Kev min  § 14:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, J.H. McDonnell. First, thanks for you contributions. I arrived here because of the page Verbeekinidae that you created. That said, I strongly second the motion to not format the section headings as you were doing. It does seem to be against the Manual of Style (see MOS:HEAD) explicitly. Regardless what the MoS may or may not say, italicizing or bold'ing the first letters of words in the heading is a bad thing to do. Computers searches operate on character strings. Putting parts of words in italics or bold completely messes up searching. Also horizontal rules are explicitly deprecated on Wikipedia, so unless there's a very good reason, please don't use them. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears from your recent edits that you use the more standard way now. Cool. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hecticoceras
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hecticoceras, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://paleodb.geology.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?action=basicTaxonInfo&amp;taxon_no=14974.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you help me?
I hear you know a lot about fossil cephalopods. I was writing about some ammonite eggs published about in 2009 for a new article that I hope to get a DYK for on the main page. However, there was a passage in the paper I was reading that confused me. I was wondering if your could help me tease some sense out of it. Here it is:

"The observed distribution patterns of the fossils of many neritic groups of ammonites in their juvenile and adult stages of ontogeny can be well explained in terms of a closely defined subsequent life-cycle in which they were gregarious, the growing juveniles or adolescents migrated over considerable distances to and from waters of significantly different depths (Stage 3), and returned as adults (Stage 4), with at least partial segregation of the sexes, to breeding grounds where the females spawned and then died (Callomon 1981, p. 262; 1985, p. 65)."

This seems pretty vague to me. Were the ammonites gregarious through their whole life or just when young? What sort of migrations were they undertaking when the got older? Seasonal? Daily? Did the sexes segregate only at stage four or were they segregated in the earlier stage of development, too? I checked the Callomon 1985 p. 65 reference and nothing it was talking about was relevant to the material being attributed to it. The Callomon 1981 reference is a paper in an old academic volume ("The Ammonoidea") that costs about $313 bucks. I thought I'd ask you if you could clarify this for me or point me in the direction of a source that discusses the information in the quote more in-depth. Thanks for your time. Abyssal (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the new article
Hello J.H.McDonnell, I wanted to thank you very much for the new stub article on the fossil mollusk genus Amphiscapha, which may be a gastropod genus. (I am mostly interested in Recent mollusks, but I volunteer behind the scenes in Invertebrate Paleontology at the AMNH museum in NYC.) As you can tell, on Wikipedia we currently have very little coverage of fossil gastropods, so we are very happy to get a new article, and to welcome an editor who is interested in that subject. I hope you don't feel that I over-linked it, but I tend to think of a very bright school kid in a developing country, perhaps in Asia, who might want to just check on some basic concepts. I know you yourself have many areas of interest, however, in case you might at some point be interested in joining WikiProject Gastropods, I am giving you this invitation.

Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Bouchet & Rocroi talk page
Hello again J.H.McDonnell, Thanks for the note on the talk page. Please go ahead and change that sentence in the B&R article as you see fit, that would be really helpful. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ammonite/Ammonoidea
If there is consensus, the article Ammonite can be moved to the new title Ammonoidea by an admin. I'd personally be okay with this move. What we should avoid, however, is having two articles on essentially the same topic (Ammonite about Ammonoidea and Ammonoidea about Ammonoidea!). mgiganteus1 (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, the article titled Ammonite should be moved to the new article I just started titled Ammonoidea since the first is really about the subclass. Content can then be revised as seems necessary.J.H.McDonnell (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got the ball rolling over at Talk:Ammonite. mgiganteus1 (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Megaloceras
Hi there. What in particular was wrong with the redirect "Megaloceras"? If you object to it on the basis that it is a misspelling, then that is all the more reason to have a redirect, for those who don't know the correct spelling. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Megaloceras and Megaloceros are entirely different things. No, my correction has nothing to do with spelling. Megaloceras is a nautiloid cephalogod belonging to the order Oncocerida and is from the Silurian period. It is a mollusc.  Megaloceros is a large deer, the Irish Elk according to the Wikipedia article, that lived during the Ice Age. It is a mammal. The fact that Magaloceras is included in the List of Nautiloids should have been a hint. On line references aren't always clear and can be as confused as confusing. John
 * OK. Thanks for creating a new article! — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Inside Centrotarphycers.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Inside Centrotarphycers.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

reliable sourcing
I am not sure that this is a Reliable Source. And you've unformatted a bunch of references. We've developed consensus over informative formatted references over the years, which this edit is undoing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sadly this is nothing new, he has been warned multiple times not to remove templates on ammonite articles. Its very frustrating.-- Kev  min  § 02:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all is as reliable a source as any other, with included references. As far as formatting goes, the issue is trivial. It's the reference that's important, not how formatted. Simple, straight forward, and direct seems preferable to space consuming fill-in-the-blanks templates. Ease of use, without unnecessary clutter, should be kept in mind. But thanks for the input, Cheers. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Point taken about the source - I've ummmed and aahed about that source myself. The changes you've made lack date retrieved and other data. Problem is, your view of unnecessary clutter differs from others, and if I or anyone else ever plan on taking this article to GA or FA status, there is about a 100% chance one or more people will insist on formatted references, which will mean (a) more work for someone else and (b) your work will be reverted, so I really would advise changing references like that anymore. Sorry, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi again. It seems to me that date published, not date retrieved is what's important. I know, someone started that idea way back and most haven't stopped to think about it.  You wouldn't put the date you checked a book out of the library, or took it off you book shelf, would you?  As for so called formatting, any system that works and provides the name of the reference with author(s)and date published and if possible an internet link should be fine.  Of course anyone is free to take the (in my opinion) more complicated way and to fill references with extras. As for the references I eliminated from some star pages, they contained no corroborative data validating claims previously made. The references I replaced them with do.   cheers J.H.McDonnell (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll double check on the sources removed - astronomy articles can be pretty oblique to read. I guess the rationale is that webpages are updated, so ti works like a "current version". Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of the recent edits by J.H.McDonnell have been highly disruptive, undoing much careful sourcing by previous editors. Not only are these edits removing useful content, they are clearly against consensus. To answer your question about why access dates are useful, see link rot and web archiving. Dead-tree books are a poor analogy. mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

WRMS template
The use of WRMS species is supported by broad consensus among members of the Mollusca Wikiprojects, and the template is used across many thousands of articles. If you have an issue with the template's output, you can raise your concerns at Template:WRMS species, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bivalves, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods (probably the best place given the number of editors who frequent it). If a change is agreed, the template can be edited and the reference formatting modified across all pages at once. mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your perspective. It seems to me however, regardless, that so long as the accuracy of what is presented isn't compromised, there should be no issue. The revised formats I created were just as accurate as the template version and would have sent any interested party to the same website. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Bivalvia
Invitation, and welcome to the project

A question
Hello J.H., I wanted to ask you one thing: in the new article about Helcionellacea, you had a sentence that said, "Both bear some resemblance to Claudia in the Cyrtolitidae, Bellerophontacea." I could not find a genus of that name in the Paleobiology Database within the family Cyrtolitidae:

http://paleodb.org/bridge.pl

So, can I ask is that genus name perhaps spelled some other way? (For the moment I removed the name but it can be replaced if it is indeed correct.)

Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, it should be Cloudia, I'm glad to get that cleared up. Actually, when you write these stubs you may want to proof read them pretty carefully after you have completed them, as I have found other typos in the taxon names fairly often. Invertzoo (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

original research/PoV
I have removed your latest addition to Annuloceras as they appear to be your own personal point of view. you have been warned before about destruction of article references and removal of references. If you continue I will report you for vandalism.--User talk:Kevmin 23:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem rather concerned over trivial procedural matters and over maintaining the status quo. I realize that's a matter of perspective.


 * As for the reference I believe you're referring to, it was not removed, other than from its popup inline position to the end of the article, but with (Klein et al 2007) inserted in line. Seems to me, considering the length and content of the article that is is ample and perfectly appropriate. Just my take.


 * Regarding "original research" (PoV), perhaps (?). However including Annuloceras in the Heteroceratidae, Ancyloceratoidea, is simply an acceptance of the original position according to Murphy 1995, which according to the original description seems valid. Of course putting Annuloceras in the Aegocrioceratidae is plausible, based on what seems to be an apparent similiarity with the Late Jurassic Cochlocriocers.


 * As a final note, let's discuss or debate matters of real science such as classification and taxonomy but let's not get tied up over arbitrary procedure. Remember we are all participants who bring different experience and perspective. Non of us, except in position of assigned authority as proscribed, has any seniority.

J.H.McDonnell (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless you have published reliable sources that say the Aegocrioceratidae placement is NOT valid, it should be placed in Aegocrioceratidae as the current consensus. Your opinion is not a valid reasoning for keeping the 1995 placement.
 * Regarding templates, you have been told numerous times by a number of different editors, not to remove the templates.  At this point its just plain vandalism and destruction of hard work by other editors. --User:Kevmin 21:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For anyone who may peer. The concept of vandalism and/or destruction is way off. Editing for better and simpler presentation is hardly vandalism, nor is simplifying and reducing clutter destruction. No one's edits are sacrosanct.
 * I accept latest placement in the Aegocrioceratidae even though original description seems to say otherwise. Even if it is kept there in the article, the original placement in the Heteroceratidae by Murphy, 1995 should be mentioned.
 * As for templates, if you're referring to reference templates, that's simply the more complicated of doing things. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The tempaltes are not just a "more complex" way of doing things, they standardize the reference structure, make it easier to make multiple inline citations to a single reference, and automatically generate external links to websites/abstracts/pdfs of the referenced paper. -- Kev min  § 03:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Germanonautilus
Please check this article for me, specifically the phrase: "The suture is with broad and deep lateral lobes and a sallow ventral lobe". Should that read "shallow ventral lobe" ? Thanks, --LilHelpa (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction made. Yes, should be "shallow ventral lobe"   J.H.McDonnell (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

September 2014
Brackets,  took notice

October 2014
Thanks

Triloculinella
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Triloculinella, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: triloculinella. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Erycitidae, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Removal without adding the inline citations is not acceptable.-- Kev min  § 01:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Taxoboxes again
J.H. Do not use manual color markup. It breaks many of the background linkages that the taxobox creates. Plus the correct use of a regnum parameter does the color anyways. Also the name parameter is defunct and useless to add to a taxobox. This is not a hard change to make in your editing. -- Kev min  § 14:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh? I'm aware that including Kingdom automatically creates the pre-set color but what are the background linkages referred to. I was unaware there were any.
 * Since taxonomic terms are linked to respective pages, their respective containing taxa can easily be found. Meanwhile it seems sufficient that e.g an ammonite (ammonid) is a cephalopod, or that a cephalopod is a mollusc.

J.H.McDonnell (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it generates category and meta data linkages in wikipedia that are broken if you futz the box and leave out regnum, and this is a general encyclopedia, and regnum is required in the taxobox even if you dont think so. -- Kev  min  § 15:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright
Hi, J.H.McDonnell! I see you've had plenty of people come here already to tell you what you should or shouldn't do, so I'm sorry to be here to do the same. However, unlike most of what is mentioned above, copyright observance is a policy – it isn't consensus-based advice or guidance, it's … well … the law. You cannot (with very rare exceptions) copy material from other sources into Wikipedia, as you did for example (with minor changes) at Qiannanites and at Quasicravenoceras. If the source reads "adjacent lobe acute, saddle between both lobes subacute", you can't just copy that into the article as "adjacent lobe acute, saddle between both lobes subacute". You may copy the meaning, but the form of words you use to express it must be your own. By the way, there's a second reason to do that – it might make what you write understandable to ordinary mortals who do not have your level of expertise or familiarity with the academic jargon of shell structure.

I'm concerned to see a number of notices from CorenSearchBot higher up this page, which suggests that the couple of pages I've looked at might perhaps be part of a larger problem. Could I ask you to take some time to go through all your contributions and check that anything that was copied verbatim from the source, whether web or print, has been completely removed (of course you are free to rewrite in your own words after removal)? That would be most helpful, thank you! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * see the reply posed to Quasicravenoceras. I worry that this may be a broad spectrum problem with J.H.McDonnell's edits.-- Kev  min  § 20:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Taxobox "name" parameter
just so you know, the "name" parameter, with rare exceptions, is not to be used anymore as it is redundant to several automatic scripts in the box and page designs. Only in cases where the Article title is different from the taxon the article is discussing should the name parameter be used.-- Kev min  § 13:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Protozoa
pProtozoa is not a kingdom anymore, and has not been used as a taxonomic rank for a number of years now, due to the extreme paraphyletic and polyphylectic nature of the grouping. please do not use it. I get that it is a grouping you are comfortable with, but it does not at all reflect current biology. Cavalier 2004 was a suggestion that was never accepted.-- Kev min  § 14:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For the sake of consistency I'll accept your suggestion. However Protozoa is still recognized by a number of online references as either a kingdom or subkingdom. Cavalier-Smith 2004 may have been a suggestion never accepted, not by whom. If it is truly polyphylectic, I agree it can't be a valid taxon. Paraphyly is irrelevant. While perhaps not appropriate as a taxon in the taxobox, protozoa is still a useful concept. Note that Sen Gupta 2002 uses Protoctista while the World Foraminifera Database uses Circozoa as does the tree of life. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Gupta is over a decade out of date, why mention it? And paraphylectic is very much just as relevant as poly.  Either way it is not a currently used taxonomic rank, and the taxoboxes should be following the current taxonomies.-- Kev  min  § 18:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am comfortable with Protozoa being a kingdom becuase it is rational, and accept it as such because I have found no reason not to. Kingdom Protozoa comprises  specific  organisms, although in separate phyla, which are united by distinct characters that separates it from other kingdoms, all that should be necessary. It can be treated as monophyletic as it is probably no more polyphyletic than any other kingdom. Paraphyly vs holophyly has no bearing on taxonomic validity in spite of the limitation imposed by cladistics. They simply indicate the nature of the taxon and nothing more.
 * Whether Foraminifera should be included in the Protozoa or Chromista is another matter. There are professional, academic references for either. So it could be put in either so long as references are provided. Even so for the sake of consistency one should be used. Although skeptical, I can go along with Chromista as determined by Cavalier-Smith 2009, as used by the World Foraminifera Database. I do agree that taxoboxes should comply with current thinking, so Chromista is where I'll be putting forams.
 * We must be free to accept or reject ideas, whether pertaining to taxonomic kingdoms or formation of the moon, but should do so on the basis of what is presented and should be respectful of opposing points of view. Science does not work by directive but by presenting better argument, and by re-examining held on concepts. Regards. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a LOT wrong with that response. Its not up to YOU to decide if Protozoa should be a kingdom.  Its up to the biology community. and they uniformly agree is a bollocks wastebasket taxon that is not valid.  I'm not sure you have an understanding of what polyphylectic is if you assert that other kingdoms are polyphyletic. The terminology is paraphyletic, polyphylectic, and MONOphyletic, not holophyletic.  Forams are placed into Retaria, which may sometimes be placed onto an unranked upergroup called Chromista, though chromista should not be given a taxobox rank if you insist on using it, and taxobox rules are only to include major ranks so it should not be included at all.-- Kev  min  § 16:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense J.H.McDonnell (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way Chromista is recognized as a kingdom in a number online references including the World Foraminifera Database and WoRMS. All taxa should have rank, shouldn't they even if left undetermined. But thanks for the tip regarding the rule that only major taxa be used in the taxobox. This means no subkingdoms, no subphyla, no superfamilies, no subfamilies, right?. I did not mean that other kingdom are polyphyletic, but only to assert that in my understanding based on references that protozoa are no more so than say plants and aminals. Holophyly is used in the literature and is synonymous with clade. Monophyly and polyphyly pertain to origin. To be taxonomically valid a taxon must be monophyletic, i.e. have a single origin. Polyphyletic taxa result from convergence and aren't (valid). Paraphyly and, yes, holophyly have to do with content. Paraphyletic taxa, a bugaboo for cladophiles, are distinct from their evolved descendants. Holophyletic taxa on the other hand contain everything from some selected common ancestor. Either can be valid. Cheers, there you have it. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)