Talk:Chromista

message: There is a section explicitly labeled "References."  I think the tag isn't needed anymore. Werothegreat 12:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No Sources Tag

message: Article says: "They include all algae whose chloroplasts contain chlorophylls a and c..." but green algae has chlorophyll a and b too. (and is obviously not a Chromista)
*You've just contradicted yourself (whoever you are).  Chromista includes those with a and c.  Green algae, which have a and b, are included in Archaeplastida and are closely related to embryophytes (land plants).  Please double check your information before putting up something like this.  Werothegreat 12:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: The names of other kingdoms are plural nouns - is "Chromista"? The first sentence of the article treats it as a singular but the second treats it as a plural. — 78.150.36.255 (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singular or plural? 

message: :"Chromista is a biological kingdom of some single-celled eukaryotic organisms, which are probably polyphyletic."
This is easily read as meaning that all members of Chromista are single-celled eukaryotic organisms (but not all single-celled eukaryotic organisms are members of Chromista). Although I am not knowledgeable about this subject, apparently this is untrue since types of seaweed, which are obviously not single-celled, are classified under Chromista (according to Wikipedia).
:"According to Cavalier-Smith, the kingdom originally included algae"
This is naturally read as meaning that the kingdom no longer includes algae, which is contradicted later in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:4B91:AB00:4CF2:224B:79CB:D81C (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *Good points. One thing is certain, this kingdom is confusing with all its taxonomical revisions. Let's see if the new edit is more readable. Chhandama (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section seems confusing or contradictory 

message: I am not a biologist but I am not ignorant of biology.  I cannot, even with difficulty, extract much information from this intro.  As an example I annotate the first sentence: "Chromista is a biological kingdom [I get that.] consisting of single-celled and multicellular [All eukaryotes are single-celled and multicelled, so that gives no information.] eukaryotic species [Aha, eukaryotes.  Are they all eukaryotes, some eukaryotes?] that share similar features [All eukaryotes share similar features.  No information here.] in their photosynthetic organelles [I deduce that they have photosynthesis.  That could be stated directly.  "Organelles": do we need that in the introduction?] (plastids) [Sorry, what does that tell me?]."  So I gather that Chromistans are a high-level division of eukaryotes, based on I know not what criteria, and are photosynthetic; that's what I extract from the whole sentence with all the technical verbiage.  Can someone please follow the WP guidelines that an introduction should be meaningful to the average educated reader?  Zaslav (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead is incomprehensible 

message: The various threads above have one thing in common: this article has been a terrible muddle. The confusion has consisted, I believe, in the continued revision of the classification and phylogeny by conflating different stages of understanding and multiple sources to try to make a synthetic tree which is in some sense up-to-date. Of course, the following week/month/year that becomes an outdated picture, and worse, it quickly becomes impossible to see what date(s) it was supposed to be "correct", which sources it used, and whether there was any sort of scientific consensus on it. 
I have therefore gone step-by-step and drawn trees which correspond directly to specific, named, cited sources. I appreciate this may seem slow and plodding to those who wish to rush on and incorporate every last minute detail, sub-detail, correction, clarification, and suggestion. The problem with that is well seen in the history of this article. 
The other thing is the degree of certainty about the Kingdom Chromista itself. Cavalier-Smith himself reconstructed it several times, and in 2009 went so far as to write that it was "probably" paraphyletic. He changed his mind about that, but which of the various Cavalier-Smith instances are we to believe, given that they contradict each other? The most that we can say is that at least one of them must be wrong, and that the Chromista could possibly be paraphyletic. Another relevant fact is that all the components of Chromista are (also) in Diaphoretickes, so if that is accepted as a taxon, Chromista is redundant. 
With all those thoughts in mind, I have reorganised the article to show the actual state of understanding of Chromista over time. I hope that, while much no doubt remains to be written, editors will agree that this is an improvement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Step by step