User talk:Snoteleks

Welcome!

Nomination of Cryptofilida for merging into Granofilosea

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cryptofilida is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be merged into Granofilosea.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptofilida until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Jako96 (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Leucodictyida for merging into Granofilosea

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Leucodictyida is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be merged into Granofilosea.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leucodictyida until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Jako96 (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Good article nominations RfC

Hi Snoteleks,

There is an ongoing Request for Comment (RfC) at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/August 2026 RfC, which you may be interested in because in the past year, you have nominated or reviewed more than one good article nomination. This message has also been sent to all subscribers to the Good Article Gazette. The RfC contains many proposals (33 at the time of writing), which are split into the following categories: nominators, reviewers, reviews, volunteer roles, reviewing initiatives, and others. However, you are more than welcome to add any proposals of your own that you wish to put to the community.

By the end of September, all the proposals will have been closed by an uninvolved editor, either as a consensus for one of the options or with no consensus. At this point, editors will be invited again to develop these proposals into coherent policy and implement them.

Thank you for your contributions to the good articles project, and I look forward to your input! (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 16:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:OR.

Jako96 (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Script suggeston

Heya, I noticed you manually closed a few discussions. In case you weren't already aware of it, the WP:XFDcloser tool can help you avoid making all these repetitive edits, such as removing the templates and adding a talk page banner. If you're interested, WP:XFDcloser explains how to use it :) FaviFake (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@FaviFake Ohh that would have been great to know earlier lol. Thanks a ton! — Snoteleks (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

No worries! To help others avoid your same mistake, could you kindly tell me every page and paragraph you read where you would've expected to see this script mentioned? FaviFake (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@FaviFake I pretty much just went to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Step_6._Implement_the_decision directly and skimmed through the instructions. I now see that the XFDcloser tool is shown in an earlier section — Snoteleks (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I added it to WP:AFD6 as well, please let me know if you think it should be mentioned elsewhere! FaviFake (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Snoteleks. I'm not sure if you should have been the one to close some of those AFDs (specifically Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heliomonadida and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptofilida. You participated in them, which makes you involved in the dispute, and only uninvolved editors should close AFDs. I don't know if undoing your closes and letting someone else handle them would meaningfully change anything in this case (@FaviFake, do you still support a merge for those articles?), but please keep this in mind in the future. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Chess enjoyer Hi, I understand your point, but the AFD proposal author explicitly stated several times that he "withdrew" the merge requests, so I thought it was within reason. I apologize if this is still the wrong procedure. — Snoteleks (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I know, but another editor still supported a merge, so that alone doesn't warrant closing the discussions. Regardless, no one should act on as a closer in formal discussions they have participated in (unless the page has already been deleted, but at that point it's just a formality). Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Chess enjoyer Understood, I will keep that in mind for next occasions. Thanks for letting me know — Snoteleks (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Snoteleks Indeed, you should not have closed these. Next time, read the WP:AfD and WP:DELPRO pages in full.

These closures are called WP:BADNAC and can be reverted, but I'm not gonna reopen those discussions because they were likely not going to reach consensus to keep anyway.

However, note that if the AFD proposal author explicitly stated several times that he "withdrew" the merge requests, you would still not be able to close the discussion as "Withdrawn by nominator." because that's not allowed per the first criterion of WP:SPEEDYKEEP. The nominator does not have a monopoly-like power over the discussions they create. I mentioned this in this comment but I guess you missed it? FaviFake (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@FaviFake Indeed I missed it, I noticed right after I left that last comment here. — Snoteleks (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Consistent ranks

Hi, see Template:Taxonomy/Euglenophyta. Template:Taxonomy/Euglenozoa cannot be given the rank of phylum because Euglenophyta has the rank of division, and division and phylum are the same rank. See the discussion at User talk:Jako96#Euglenophyta rank. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Vital articles

Would you add any other protists to vital articles level 5, given what is listed currently (and given the quota of the page)? The ones I was wondering about include Coccolithophore ◎ 5, Ochrophyte , Euglena , Amoeba (genus) , and Volvox . Or is there anything more important that is missing? ~2026-45985-49 (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-45985-49 The quota being 6 articles in excess makes any decision more difficult, but based on the preexisting list I would add these that I deem necessary off the top of my head:

• Chlamydomonas
• Coccolithophore
• Cryptosporidium
• Euglena
• Green algae
• Ochrophyte
• Physarum polycephalum

And I would remove:

• Chaos (genus)
• Filasterea
• Glaucophyte
• Many pages from non-protist groups that are equally irrelevant, if not more

I think given the coverage on amoebae at present, the genus Amoeba adds nothing new, nor does Chaos. For green algae, Volvox would be a nice choice but to keep it conservative I would rather add Chlamydomonas since it is a more prevalent model organism. If the excess goes away I would definitely add Volvox too. — Snoteleks (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll look into proposing swaps for these. Also note, Green algae ◎ 4 and Chlamydomonas ◎ 5 are vital under a "green algae" section directly under "plants" onn level 5. ~2026-45985-49 (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-45985-49 Thank you for reaching out about this, I appreciate the effort. Also I did not realize those were under plants, I will try to fix that soon — Snoteleks (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your votes on the discussion page.

1. I will note that I didn't nominate Euglena, as I couldn't tell if it was covered enough by Euglenid; or Ochrophyte, as I was not completely sure that Stramenopile and the subentries didn't cover it.
2. I noticed you moved green algae out of the plants section on level 5. No comment on which organization is better, but it should probably be in the same place on Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level 4/Biology and health sciences.
3. On a different note, I have a list of biology topics which I'm considering proposing at level 5 (Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level 5/Biology and health sciences/Biology, after the talk page eventually clears up. I might propose switching them for some of the minor anatomy/physiology topics on that page, or maybe swap some animals for these. I'm not asking you to comment on these unless you want to, just thinking about ideas.
   1. In biochemistry and molecular biology: active site, allosteric regulation, metabolic pathway, enzyme kinetics, bioenergetics, ribozyme, denaturation (biochemistry)
   2. In genetics: phenotypic plasticity, aneuploidy, polyploidy, genetic variation, gene family
   3. In cell biology: extracellular matrix, gas exchange, microbial metabolism
   4. In evolution: molecular clock, experimental evolution, common descent, life history theory, kin selection, sexual conflict, evolutionary game theory, signalling theory, plant defense against herbivory, anti-predator adaptation
   5. In ecology: population dynamics, population ecology, ecosystem ecology, plant ecology, pioneer species, Aldo Leopold
   6. In virology: viral life cycle, viral entry, viral replication, viral pathogenesis, retrovirus, viroid
   7. General: mathematical and theoretical biology, biostatistics

Thanks. ~2026-45985-49 (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-45985-49 No problem, I am happy to help as it is a more direct public outreach for the coverage of my project. Thanks for letting me know of these discussions. I will try to arrange the level 4 organization as well. Regarding euglenids, they are such a diverse group that Euglena as a model organism has little to do with how euglenids in general are understood; hence my suggestion. About your proposals, as someone with a background in biology I would love to give you my thoughts. Off the top of my head:

1. Biochem and mol bio: All of these proposals sound reasonable.
2. Genetics: I think aneuploidy and polyploidy are probably redundant given the presence of Ploidy ◎ 5, but the rest seem like they should be there.
3. Cell bio: I don't see the relevance of microbial metabolism, the article seems like an amalgamation of information that is already present in other articles. Metabolism ◎ 3 covers part of it and all of the individual primary nutritional groups are also covered through Anaerobic respiration ◎ 5, Photosynthesis ◎ 3, etc. To be perfectly clear, the article Nutrition ◎ 3 should probably be improved to include more clarity on microbial metabolism and primary nutritional groups, I just do not agree on prioritizing a separate article. Maybe articles such as Anaerobic organism could be added instead.
4. Evolution: I would get rid of molecular clock and evolutionary game theory, all others are very good picks. Molecular clock is a bit too niche, I would much rather add Apomorphy and synapomorphy and Computational phylogenetics first. Evolutionary game theory does not seem to be a scientific topic, seems to be more in line with game theory and pop culture interpretations of evolutionary theory, so it is out of scope here.
5. Ecology: I am not deeply familiar with this branch of science so I cannot argue for Aldo Leopold, I know nothing of him. Other than that, these are good picks.
6. Virology: I approve of all picks except viral pathogenesis. Once again, viral pathogenesis seems like an amalgamation of information that I would already expect to find in the main virus articles as well as the other picks here.
7. General: These two are perfect additions considering Biophysics ◎ 5.

— Snoteleks (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Redirects listed at Redirects for discussion

Redirects you have created have been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether their use and function meet the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on these redirects at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 September 11 § TSAR until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:13, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Snoteleks. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2–3 days of inactivity. Message added by Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 01:31, 26 September 2026 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Your thread has been archived

Hello Snoteleks! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Wikipedia map?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Centrohelid is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Centrohelid is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Rand Freeman -- Rand Freeman (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2026 (UTC)