Talk:Sainouridae

@Snoteleks: Check the links in the taxonbar. There seems to be ongoing discrepancy on the taxonomy here. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The wikispecies taxonomy seems to be out of date. Is that what you mean? —Snoteleks (Talk) 14:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Look at them all: GBIF, IRMNG, and WoRMS. Wikispecies aligns with WoRMS. IRNMG is similar but not of the same level of granularity, but perhaps intended to represent the same. GBIF just punts. However, a change in taxonomy in Wikipedia articles is usually only done after some of the 3rd party sources start following what is published in the primary sources. You are aking changes based only on primary sourcing... that's not good. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry but WoRMS, GBIF or IRNMG are not valid taxonomic publications, especially when it comes to protist classification. The majority of protist information within those databases is outdated and completely obsolete. I am just implementing changes based on peer-reviewed publications, just like in every other article. Otherwise, we'd still be treating stuff like Chromista as a real kingdom, when the scientific community has long rejected it. I understand that you're concerned by changes based exclusively on primary sourcing, but ignoring primary sources in favour of very unreliable third party sources is (at least in my opinion) detrimental. In addition, at WP:ToL we have already agreed that taxonomic revisions of small taxa like these will only be implemented after we see no disagreement from other authors after 3-4 years (see this discussion), and it has already been more than 5 years (will be 6 in April) since this group's revision. —Snoteleks (Talk) 14:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Besides, those databases (should) rely on primary sources for all of their information. —Snoteleks (Talk) 14:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply