Template talk:Taxonomy/Teleostomi

Edit request on 23 April 2012

In the Parent field, indicating the taxon to appear right above Teleostomi in taxoboxes, please change Eugnathostomata to Gnathostomata. Eugnathostomata is an extremely obscure taxon, with only ten results from Google Scholar. Its presence in taxoboxes is clutter, serving no purpose. Wikipedia provides no information about this group other than its taxonomic position. Gnathostomata, a slightly more inclusive clade, yields 1990 results as of this writing. Thanks, Peter M. Brown (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Done Danger ^{High voltage!} 12:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and all but one of them has been published within the last eight years. My research tells me the clade you've declared "obscure" includes a significant portion of the Gnathostomata and excludes a significant portion as well; adding it back in until someone proves this taxon is invalid. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It certainly isn't invalid and, yes, there are plenty of gnathostomes that are eugnathostomes as well as plenty that are not. But what of that? Notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is a matter of occurrence in the literature, not in the world. Nor is validity a sufficient condition for inclusion; Sarcopterygii is a perfectly valid clade, but the parent provided for Tetrapoda is not Sarcopterygii but rather Teleostomi.

What is the point of bothering the reader with this item? Clicking on the link will not lead the reader to any notable information about the group. Further searching will probably turn up little but the very brief and very technical mention at Palaeos.com; the authors of that site don't even think it worth including in their Gnathostomata cladogram. Though it does appear in the cladogram in Wikipedia's Gnathostomata article, it is omitted—deliberately, I am sure—from the subgroups in that article's taxobox.

Of course, most readers don't pay attention to the list of more inclusive groups anyhow. A bit of clutter in a few taxoboxes is not significantly detrimental. When there are hundreds of taxoboxes involved, though, this begins to matter.

Peter M. Brown (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Starting an RfC; obviously since the two of us are in disagreement we need additional opinions. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Skipping Eugnathostomata

Please see the discussion above. The question is how to handle the taxon Eugnathostomata. There are several paths we can take here:

• Leave as is (Eugnathostomata is said to create clutter)
• Delete Eugnathostomata (this leaves out a defining taxon)
• Create {{taxonomy/Teleostomi/skip}}, which would effectively hide Eugnathostomata any desired daughter taxon and all its descendants.

Input or ideas are welcome; no action should be taken until agreed upon. Thanks, Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of informed discussion, the only two articles on Wikipedia that this decision will affect are Amniota and Tetrapod (if automated, Placodermi, Chondrichthyes, Acanthodii, Teleostomi would also include it); all other taxoboxes already skip it as a minor rank. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I certainly erred in writing of "hundreds", though it doesn't affect major issue: what are these lists trying to accomplish? Note that none of the taxoboxes of the four clades that automation would affect currently include Eugnathostomata; the creators evidently did not consider this taxon worth mentioning. Note, also, that if the decision is to include every "defining taxon" then additional revisions are in order; we cannot, for example, leave out the Eubilateria, a clade including Protostomia and Deuterostomia but not Acoelomorpha. Besides the taxa listed, incidentally, the decision does affect Mammalia because "display_parents = 6" is specified in its taxobox. Peter M. Brown (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment My ha'porth is that the distaste for clutter does not take priority over presenting incomplete information. If it seems to cause clutter, do a bit of structural re-formatting instead. A minor taxon? Perhaps, but to omit every item but the major ones is not very encyclopedic. I went to have a look at the list, and 1: it fitted comfortably on one page, and 2: omitting Eugnathostomata would not de-clutter it significantly. Until someone comes up with a substantial justification for the hiding and deletion options, rather than points of minor irritation, keep it in. JonRichfield (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Like JonRichfield I don't find the taxobox overly cluttered, but the sole reason for having Eugnathostomata at all, is to exclude jawed Placoderms relative to the Gnathostomata. It is a unit of extremely minor importance. I am for a skip in this case. The unit is really only of relevance to a small handful of articles (and not to Amniota or Tetrapoda). Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  Would you want Eugnathostomata in any taxobox other than the one at Eugnathostomata? Should it show up at Placodermi? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• If we do the skip templates, then do we need a skip template for Placodermi and any other immediate child of Eugnathostomata, or do we only want to skip from Teleostomi? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to skip from Amniota and Tetrapoda (and Placodermi, Chondrichthyes, Acanthodii, Teleostomi) directly to Vertebrata. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment (per rfc request) Note that where 2 editors disagree a WP:THIRD opinion is more appropriate for requesting an additional comment. I don't think the template is overly cluttered but I would suggest attracting editors at a related wikiproject page due to the technical nature of the disagreement. See Before requesting comment at WP:RFC. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment While it doesn't clutter all that much, it does feel like a bit of a niggle. I'm for displaying Eugnathostomata in the the immediate daughters, Teleostomi and Chondrichthyes and skip it for the rest. Dracontes (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

  That's exactly what happens in its current unrevised state. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's showing up in Amniota and Tetrapoda. Can we resolve the issue by agreeing on Dracontes's proposal? Peter M. Brown (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Those would fall into the "immediate daughters" category that Dracontes mentioned. Why treat some immediate daughters differently from other immediate daughters? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

My bad: I was talking in the phylogenetic sense. Given that according to the taxonomy in Teleostomi, Eugnathostomata has a microphylum rank, I guess that to cater to tree and typological thinkers both the daughter clades and the superclasses (and the unranked taxa of similar stature?), within it should show this taxon name within the taxobox. Dracontes (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I don't find the taxobox overly cluttered at all. It's nice to see intermediate clades. Eugnathostomata is the valid clade, recognized in literature, that excludes the paleontologically important Placodermi, but includes the rest of Gnathostomata. It should remain, and be left as is.—wing gundam 18:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)