Talk:PhyloCode

message: In actual practice, this has been modified to reflect some phylogenetic concerns, like this (note the addition of domain, subkingdom...
* "Some" phylogenetic concerns? what phylogenetic concerns?
* I can't "note the addition of ... subkingdom", because there isn't one. Can someone who knows please add it or remove the reference to it?
-- Mpt 12:55, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A note

message: The word chaos appears appropriate! Berton, it is messy to break up previous text. It affects readability very badly. Also, it is counter to wikipedia policy. Furthermore, reverting a good faith edit is not a nice thing to do. 
Making a text available on a Talk-page is a form of making it available on the web. In this case of copyrighted material (see my Talk page). 
Note to MrDarwin: you should be able to access this particular letter (download the pdf-file) from any computer, provided cookie settings etc are in order: access is free of charge. Brya 10:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried several different times to get to this article from my computer, and I cannot. As far as I can get on the Ingenta connect website is to the "Letters to the Editor" section and then it tells me "The full text article is available for purchase" I have been unable to find it at any other website. Nevertheless, I am quite certain that copying the letter here is violating copyright and I will notify an administrator. MrDarwin 13:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I got confused by the title. The Letter to the editor in 54(4) "150 reasons for paraphyly: a response" is available free. The original "Paraphyletic taxa should be accepted" in Vol 54(1) is not free. Probably sloppy reading on my part. There is a whole series of these things and most are free. Sorry about that. Brya 17:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with MrDarwin - we have no right to post material from Taxon here, so I have removed it. Even if it is published on their website, that does not make it copyright-free, unless they clearly and specifically indicate that copyright is waived. Some of the text is available here (pdf file; page 18), where it is clearly stated "reprinted with permission" - permission that we do not have at the moment. - MPF 14:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing to do Michael, you are far, but the letter and its proposal is there (and I recommend emphatically the reading of this proposal)! I bought this in the mentioned site. And I will ask the editors for expressed permission, if it is the case, because I find this letter of highest importance. Berton 17:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, it is worth asking the editors for permission to reproduce it (you will need to point out to them that placing it on wikipedia will make it available under GFDL, so it is likely to be copied on from here) - MPF 17:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the explanation. Berton 17:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The new material is also copyrighted. Brya 18:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chaos

message: Please note that Berton has been editing his comments in this discussion after others have already replied to them, sometimes weeks or months after posting his initial comments. MrDarwin 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Important note

message: Hi,
This article reads very much as if it has been written by a proponent of the PhyloCode; the impression I got from reading the article was that this was definitely going to supercede Linnean taxonomy. I've made a couple of dilutions since, but it would be really helpful if the article could focus a little more on what PhyloCode IS and how it works, rather than a vague history and sweeping statements about its goals.
The article would benefit greatly if someone who was familiar, but not emotionally involved, with the topic were to:
* Add an accessible explanation of exactly how PhyloCode works and how it differs from the Linnean system
* Explain why it is better than Linnean taxonomy
* Explain where Linnean taxonomy is better than PhyloCode
* Explain the level of support for the project
Thanks,
Verisimilus T 12:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Is the tree of life classification a phylocode ?
If so include in article; books has gotten allot of media attention as replacement linnean system
http://www.longitudebooks.com/find/p/71285/mcms.html
:No it isn't. The Phylocode a set of rules, not a classification. I don't get what you meant, but it doesn't seem related.--Earrnz (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The book is a classification following PhyloCode or PhyloCode-like rules. Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hervé le guyader 

message: Apparently the taxonomy of xenarthans (only 29 species) is given explanation but mites (48,200 species) is not even mentioned? Likewise, the vast majority of arthropod groups are given 0 mention while groups like primates, turtles and pterosaurs are given detail while only having a couple hundred species each? How could they have spent years assembling this thing while completely committing so many important groups of organisms?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58C:C580:5A40:7939:FA64:5E6A:B121 (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies