Template talk:Taxonomy/Tracheophytes/Plantae

Template:Taxonomy/Tracheophytes/Plantae is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.

Template-protected edit request on 30 January 2023[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

To better scientific accuracy I suggest correcting the group Clade to Division in the case of Tracheophyte 83.223.242.86 (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Get consensus at Talk:Vascular plant first. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 11 February 2024[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am no expert, and therefore might be very wrong but the scientific classification of animals order is incorrect. As far as I am aware, it should be Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species. However, here, Phylum and Class are both replaced with Clade. President MG (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I am also no expert, perhaps we should ask editor Peter coxhead, who created this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 21:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@President MG: do you really mean "animals"? Because this comment is at one of the main plant taxonomy templates.

In either case, the answer to the question is that the traditional set of ranks simply doesn't fit the reality of the relationships revealed by modern molecular phylogenetic methods, so current classifications inevitably use many clades, particularly for fossil groups. For example, start at Fossilworks view of Dinosauriformes and follow the "parent" links. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 22 March 2024[edit]

This edit request to Template:Taxonomy/Tracheophyta has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the taxonomy section, in front of Tracheophyta, it says "clade" where phylum should be 2607:EA00:200:500:49AE:2726:971C:293A (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted: please see below. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 24 March 2024[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change back to clade:

Treating Tracheophytes as a phylum is an unusual position. It encompasses groups traditionally treated as divisions (a rank in botany equivalent to the traditional zoological rank of phylum). Previous edit requests on 30 January 2023 and 11 February 2024 to change |rank= from clade were denied. Plantdrew (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Peter coxhead took care of this, editor Plantdrew, and thank you for removing "phylum" from the Tracheophyta article! That's what threw me. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]