Template talk:Taxonomy/CAM

Template:Taxonomy/CAM 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.

Requested move 19 April 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taxonomy/CAM → Template:Taxonomy/"CAM" – CAM should be "CAM" because it's invalid under the PhyloCode. It does not have a definition. Jako96 (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Generally, if this was in the main article namespace where such details like special characters would matter, it would be one thing. But this is the template namespace, where you are dealing with templates and coding and other things that are more computer programming-oriented. And such details are not that critical because template titles seem to be more closer to computer programming variables and functions than actual article titles. And iirc some programming languages would not even allow such quotation marks in variable and function names. That said, since I do not actually edit taxonomy articles on a regular basis, I am staying neutral. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: The suggestion to use scare quotes is a pure insertion of WP:EDITORIALIZING. Commentary belongs in article content, not the names of templates. See WP:SCAREQUOTES. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very few clade names have been validated under the PhyloCode. Most clades that have names (albeit not PhyloCode valid names) never appear with quotes around them. Plantdrew (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request 5 May 2025

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

Description of suggested change:

The children of CAM (especially Cryptista) should have Diaphoretickes always displayed so that it is consistent with Template:Taxonomy/Haptista and Template:Taxonomy/TSAR.

Diff:

— Snoteleks (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Diaphoretickes is already being displayed too much. Sar species such as Fucus gardneri and Ammonia tepida display 3 clades between Eukaryota and a phylum, which is excessive, and Diaphoretickes seems like the most obvious one to omit. Also, I'm not sure that CAM should even be used as the parent of any other taxonomy templates. Pretty much the only place I see it used is the 2022 study that found it and press releases related to that study. Google search for "CAM clade" pretty quickly get into other "CAM" clades than this one (a lot of them are clades with CAM photosynthesis). Plantdrew (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew To be honest, I just suggested this because I want to have Eukaryota displayed in Cryptista articles. I don't really mind having Diaphoretickes not displayed all the time. And I agree with you about the CAM clade, feels like some editors really pushed in its favor but there is only one source for it (and the pre-peer-review bioRxiv version), and I think the standard for deep clades should be higher. Even TSAR has plenty of sources, despite it not being quite as stable as the others. — Snoteleks (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will say, though, there's some vertebrate articles that have plenty more than 3 clades between regular ranks. — Snoteleks (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, on another note, if we got rid of the CAM clade, where would we put Microheliella maris? I feel like that's a good reason to maintain it for now. — Snoteleks (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snoteleks:, I had edited the Haptista and TSAR templates a few days ago to stop Diaphoretickes from being always displayed, but quickly reverted myself after realizing that also stopped Eukaryota from being displayed. Probably the solution is to just make Domain a major rank that is always displayed. The templates for Bacteria and Archaea already used |always_display=; that would be unnecessary if Domain was treated as a major rank, and the /displayed template for Eukaryota could be eliminated.

What vertebrates display plenty more than 3 clades between regular ranks? Are any of them genera or species? I know there are Crocodylomorphans that display more than 3 (e.g. Protosuchidae) and some dinosaurs (Stegosaurus has 4), but Crocodylomorphs don't display anything at the rank of order, and dinosaurs don't have a class or an order. I'm not concerned about order articles that display a bunch of clades to get up to class rank (with that being achieved by |display_parents= in the articles taxobox), nor am I concerned about 1-2 clades being displayed instead of a traditional rank. I am concerned about 3+ clades being displayed in species articles in place of a traditional rank via |always_display= in taxonomy templates. Plantdrew (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just the Bird page alone does it, I haven't checked genera or species.

I will suggest changing Eukaryota to always display. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bird does it via |display_parents=. There is nothing in Template:Taxonomy/Aves that uses |always_display= except for Eukaryota/displayed (although there are a bunch of always displays hidden by the skip templates for archosaurs and dinosaurs). Plantdrew (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew Oh wait yes I see what you mean. In Bird the shown clades are immediately above Bird, while in those examples you showed the clades occupy the upper portion, far from the taxa. I agree it does seem annoying. I think we could do away with Diaphoretickes and probably also Sar, since Stramenopiles, Alveolata and Rhizaria are already the most recognizable. — Snoteleks (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]