Talk:Stramenopile

message: One good overview of the state of eukaryote taxonomy is .  If I'm reading it correctly, the stramenopile (= heterokont) group is well-supported, but the grouping of heterokonts, haptophytes, and cryptomonads into Chromista is much more controversial.  If so, then merging this article with heterokont would make sense. But we should generally focus on what is well established, and be a bit cautious about how we treat new results which haven't yet faced the test of time. Kingdon (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have gone ahead and made Stramenopile a redirect to heterokont.  Stramenopiles (with an s) has been a redirect for a long time, and whatever disputes there might be about any of these groups, I haven't seen anything to suggest that stramenopile means something different from heterokont.  The heterokont article already covers everything which had been at Stramenopile. Kingdon (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge with heterokont 

message: I propose, per the discussions at Talk:Heterokont and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Stramenopile or Heterokont?, where there appears to be broad consensus for a merger, and for it to be in this direction, that we should merge Heterokont into Stramenopile, which is agreed now to be a synonym, whatever the subtleties may have been in the past as "Heterokont" shifted in meaning taxonomically. I note that suggestions in this direction have been made on the different talk pages since 2008, so it is time to complete the merge now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. See  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Stramenopile or Heterokont? for reasoning. —  Jts1882 | talk  20:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Support! So happy to see so much agreement. ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 22:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Support. After reading the discussion at ToL, I concur that this merger is good and necessary. Happy editing. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Some suggestions since I'm not the GA reviewer but I also want what's best for this article (but right now I can't contribute to it comfortably from where I am writing this):
* Chromoplast/stramenochrome as the term for stramenopilous chloroplasts could use a reference, because currently the page chromoplast states that it's just a kind of chloroplast found in regular plants.
* The phylogeny section could maybe be renamed to Evolution since it talks about its evolutionary history from common SAR ancestors (and maybe we could add a fossil subsection to it), and the classification subsection could be a separate section of its own,
* I would also add that, in the external evolution area, I think there are other hypotheses than a single event of endosymbiosis between the last SAR common ancestor and a red alga. We should probably add those too? I bet there's a lot of papers that discuss the common stramenopilous ancestor too. In the Labyrinthulomycetes#Evolution page I added a reference to the secondary loss of plastids within Stramenopiles as part of the text and cladogram, maybe mentioning the secondary plastid losses here could come in handy too.
* I am dying to change the main internal cladogram. If I can I will do it myself ASAP but for now I have to stress that the Silar (2016) thing is not even a paper, it's an educational book, and Ruggiero (2015) is just a taxonomical classification scheme. I referenced Thakur et al. (2019) in classification, which is a much more appropriate source as a recent phylogenetic analysis. Another example is Cho et al. (2022) from the Gyrista#Phylogeny page. Please, anything but "Ruggiero & Silar". I suffer. —Snoteleks 🦠 18:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe hold off till after the GA as we can't edit in multiple directions at once. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Chiswick Chap Of course, GA comes first —Snoteleks 🦠 08:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

text: in your opinion, would any of those factors hold the article back from GA status? I think points one and three could stand to be included now that they have been brought up, but even without them it seems to me as a layman reader the article is broad enough in its coverage (for GA) as is. Two and four seem much more preferential, and I feel like those could be sorted out in discussion after the GAN. Fritzmann (message me) 01:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Fritzmann2002 As someone heavily indulged in the subject, I am aware my suggestions are very nitpicky for a layman reader. They definitely are not meant to be part of a GA review and do not hold back the article from GA status. I wrote them mainly to not forget about them, because I would like to implement them. —Snoteleks 🦠 08:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I  think the GA is complete, and the uncontroversial items can go ahead afterwards. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions