Template talk:Taxonomy/Methylomirabilacaea
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
.jpg?lang=en){kind=small}
 | On 10 October 2025, it was proposed that this page be moved to Template:Taxonomy/Methylomirabilia. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Requested move 10 October 2025
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Template:Taxonomy/Methylomirabilacaea → Template:Taxonomy/Methylomirabilia – The name is obviously a misspelling (WP:SMALLDETAILS?), but more curious is that this template sets its link to Methylomirabilia anyway. Besides, "Methylomirabilaceae" (the correct spelling) is a family, not a class, and the taxonomy template for it already exists: Template:Taxonomy/Methylomirabilaceae. CheckNineEight (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Ophyrius (he/him
T • C • G) 07:57, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, it's an obvious error. Moving/redirecting taxonomy templates can cause odd effects because of the way the automated taxobox system handles them. So I've created the correct Template:Taxonomy/Methylomirabilia rather than moving the incorrect one, which can be put into Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates when it will be deleted. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- See Methylomirabilis oxyfera. Its taxobox did have the incorrect spelling "Methylomirabilacaea", which I've corrected to "Methylomirabila" because that's the spelling in the source given for the class. However, it doesn't use any taxonomy templates, as it has a manual taxobox – I assume because of the difficulty in supporting the strange prokaryotic nomenclature, with double quotes and Candidatus prefixes. So I'm not clear whether Template:Taxonomy/Methylomirabilia will actually be used. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- I was actually going to use it on NC10 phylum, which is how I even found "Methylomirabilacaea" in the first place (when editing). But, like, we better still use it anyway, I think – even without the double quotes and the Ca. prefix – because there's at least been a discussion about implementing those new features in the future. Right? CheckNineEight (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Well, there's been discussion, but it seems that the only way to support the double quotes and the Ca. prefix is to create a new taxobox template, and so far no-one wants to do it. So do what you think fit. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- I was actually going to use it on NC10 phylum, which is how I even found "Methylomirabilacaea" in the first place (when editing). But, like, we better still use it anyway, I think – even without the double quotes and the Ca. prefix – because there's at least been a discussion about implementing those new features in the future. Right? CheckNineEight (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.