Talk:Glaucophyte

Protista High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Protista, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of protists and protistology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ProtistaWikipedia:WikiProject ProtistaTemplate:WikiProject ProtistaProtista articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Algae Top‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Algae, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the photosynthetic organisms commonly called algae and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AlgaeWikipedia:WikiProject AlgaeTemplate:WikiProject AlgaeAlgae articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Number of Species

This page should say how many species are found in the phylum. --Savant13 20:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kingdon (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-contradictions

This article contradicts itself three times regarding the number of species. In the first paragraph, it says 14. In the Classification section, it says 13. In the list of species there are 23 species names. Ypna (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to sort it a bit, but sources are confused. Thus the information webpage in AlgaeBase (https://www.algaebase.org/browse/taxonomy/detail/?taxonid=4301) says "thirteen", but the taxonomy browser webpage (https://www.algaebase.org/browse/taxonomy/#4301) says 26. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ypna: I've revised the article and removed the "contradictory" template. It's hard to know what else to do – e.g. what genera to wikilink – when sources vary so much. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: Since the sources are confused you've done the best anyone possibly can. Thanks. Ypna (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio?!

It seems to me that majority of text on this page is copied from AlgaeBase page on glaucophytes. Is this the violation of copyrights? --Wlodzimierz (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure algaebase got it from us. At least, browsing through the edit history of the wikipedia article seems to show an article which gradually built up over time. Before I noticed that, I started a rewrite (after all, it isn't very long). I did save my text (thinking it an improvement over what had been there), but also kept some of the previous text. So people should feel free to take a look at what I did in case I lost anything important. Kingdon (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

This article from 2019 has an updates list over the four orders and all known species. Seems like the list in the article isn't a complete match: ^[1] 84.208.233.134 (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated material from that article now. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Plastid Genomes from Diverse Glaucophyte Genera Reveal a Largely Conserved Gene Content and Limited Architectural Diversity

[1] Plastid Genomes from Diverse Glaucophyte Genera Reveal a Largely Conserved Gene Content and Limited Architectural Diversity

[1]

Talk:Glaucophyte

Number of Species

Self-contradictions

copyvio?!

Classification

Navigation menu

Search