Template talk:Taxonomy/Embryophytes/Plantae

Template:Taxonomy/Embryophytes/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 15 July 2022

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

As the streptophytes get more resolved, the well recognized phragmoplastophyta should be considered the parent, rather than streptophytes. Also following the ref. It doesn't look like taxonomic level inconsistencies will occur, and the ref. should be followed. Jmv2009 (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I can't tell what you want done to this template. Please include a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 17 February 2025

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

Change the parent from Streptophyta to Phragmoplastophyta. Jako96 (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Jako96: according to the Phragmoplastophyta article, this is a "proposed" clade, so welcoming editors Plantdrew and Peter coxhead to see if we need a consensus for this edit. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: it's seen at {{Taxonomy/Embryophytes}} that this has already been done for the parent taxonomy page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Jako96 (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this variant of {{Taxonomy/Embryophytes}} is that it can be used when an editor wants to go directly from embryophytes to Plantae, bypassing all the complexity and controversy attached to intermediate clades. So it would totally defeat the purpose to change the parent. Really Streptophyta should not have been added. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict), well Peter said what I was in the middle of speculating; the parent should be set to Plantae, not Streptophyta nor Phragmoplatophyta. Plantdrew (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The parent was changed with this edit and has been reverted. The above proposed edit then is

not done. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 19 June 2025

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

Add references:
- Engler, A. 1892. Syllabus der Vorlesungen über specielle und medicinisch-pharmaceutische Botanik: Eine Uebersicht über das ganze Pflanzensystem mit Berücksichtigung der Medicinal- und Nutzpflanzen. Berlin: Gebr. Borntraeger.
- Pirani, J. R.; Prado, J. (2012). "Embryopsida, a new name for the class of land plants" (PDF). Taxon. 61 (5): 1096–1098. doi:10.1002/tax.615014.
Change link text from «Embryophyte|Embryophytes» to «Embryophyte|Embryophyta». — Snoteleks (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the way to do what I think you want to do, which I believe is to display Embryophyta in the taxobox and link it to the Embryophyte page. This change needs a new variant template, e.g. Template:Taxonomy/Embryophyta/Plantae. But as over 100k pages use the template it needs discussion. I'm not sure why Embryophyta isn't used but it wasn't accidental. @Peter coxhead and Plantdrew: — Jts1882 | talk 15:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One issue is that if a formal taxon name is used, then it would be expected that there is some consensus as to its rank. Check the taxonomic databases in the taxonbar: subkingdom, superdivision, clade? You can also find class. Treating it as a clade with an informal name in the taxonomy system seems best, at least for now, although the text of the article should present the range of ranks. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]