Talk:Ichthyosporea

Protista Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Protista, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of protists and protistology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ProtistaWikipedia:WikiProject ProtistaTemplate:WikiProject ProtistaProtista articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microbiology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 28 August 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Mesomycetozoea to Ichthyosporea. The result of the discussion was moved.

Requested move

Comment here. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 23:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This looks suspiciously like the verboten US vs. UK editwarring. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has any reason been offered for this move? None is apparent here, and there is no link to any other explanation. --Stemonitis 10:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear, judging from the German Wikipedia, that Mycetozoea is a class within the larger (rankless) taxon Mesomycetozoa. WP:TOL rules are to use the lowest rank available, and it makes sense to favour primary ranks over secondary ranks or rankless taxa. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article should be renamed to Ichthyosporea because it is the name preferred by the most recent scientific literature. --kupirijo (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible fossils

nature.com has this article on fossils with similarities to this form. If someone can link the research paper here, that would be good.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.135.151 (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

question?

Unicellular or multicellular? Bwrs (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 August 2023

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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 22:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mesomycetozoea → Ichthyosporea – I think it is pretty obvious that Ichthyosporea is the preferred name used for this taxonomic group, especially in the last decade. Almost all literature regarding Holozoan taxa describes it as Ichthyosporea, not Mesomycetozoea. It also is the oldest name and therefore has preference. Consensus can be seen in here at WP:TOL. This is a contested technical request (permalink). —Snoteleks 🦠 13:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, Mesomycetozoea is wikilinked a total of 78 times while Ichthyosporea is linked 148 times. —Snoteleks 🦠 11:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article was created soon after Mendoza's review and it seemed a reasonable proposal for a class that was not just fish parasites, but twenty years later the name clearly hasn't caught on. For once a Cavalier-Smith name survives. — Jts1882 | talk 12:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I was surprised by how many names from Cavalier-Smith are retained in the ISP's eukaryote revision of 2019. Even though his higher classification is pretty much rejected, he named so many new lower taxa in groups like excavates, podiates and rhizarians that he is still very present. —Snoteleks 🦠 12:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the above comments here from WikiProject Tree of Life. SilverLocust 💬 22:49, 28 August 2023 (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.