This article is ratedStub-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

ProtistaMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Protista, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofprotists andprotistology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ProtistaWikipedia:WikiProject ProtistaTemplate:WikiProject ProtistaProtista Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. MicrobiologyLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofMicrobiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale.

The redirectDevelopea has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 11 § Developea until a consensus is reached.Jako96 (talk)20:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section thatBigyromonada berenamed and moved toBigyromonadeaBigyromonadea. Abot will list this discussion on therequested moves current discussionssubpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see theclosing instructions). Please base arguments onarticle title policy, and keep discussionsuccinct andcivil. Please use{{subst:requested move}}. Donot use{{requested move/dated}} directly. Links:current log •target log •direct move

Bigyromonada →BigyromonadeaBigyromonadea – The scientific consensus is to use the class-level name, for example,this source uses the name Bigyromonadea and introduces new taxa. You can also check thisGoogle Scholar search to confirm me.Jako96 (talk)19:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Snoteleks as he agreed with me on this proposal.Jako96 (talk)19:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 Considering the history of this taxon, it's better if we move it toBigyromonad, the vernacular name. That way we avoid any foreseen bias —Snoteleks(talk)20:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought about that. We have to do this perWikipedia:WikiProject Protista#Article title anyway, so let's just move toBigyromonad instead, as you said.Jako96 (talk)20:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just close this discussion and move toBigyromonad if @Jts1882 also agrees with us (we have to do this per WikiProject rules anyway).Jako96 (talk)20:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been also writing guidelines atWikipedia:WikiProject Protista/Article guidelines —Snoteleks(talk)21:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is scientific consensus for the change, give a taxonomic source for the consensus, not just one example. Your flooding the projects with such requests is annoying. It undermines your case when the proposal is a good one.  — Jts1882 | talk 20:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you'd find a Google Scholar search enough, Jts. Anyway, here is more:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2022.107468 andhttps://dx.doi.org/10.14288/1.0443571. There are sources that use the subphylum Bigyromonada, but nobody wants to use the three-subphylum system of Gyrista. See these sources for example, they all reject the phylum Gyrista and use the phylum Ochrophyta instead of the subphylum Ochrophytina:https://doi.org/10.1111/jpy.13518,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2022.05.051,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceano.2021.04.005,https://doi.org/10.1111/jpy.70076,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2023.06.021,https://doi.org/10.22201/fc.24488100e.2025.11.1.3,https://doi.org/10.55976/fnds.220241297141-155. There is one other name, namely phylum Bigyromonadea, but it's just mentioned in one source and nobody uses it:https://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(25)00551-2.Jako96 (talk)20:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jako, I think I know what many people find slightly annoying about all these RMs and discussions (and I have been watching, though not participating). At least, it irks me.

We all value your contributions here, but you have a tendency to pick obscure topics and then state verylaconicly, without context, thatx change needs to be made, then ask for feedback. The natural response is "butwhy does Bergylflaxophlogidae need to be renamed to Saphoclerobwixidae?" The sheer number of these laconic RMs is slightly overwhelming, and because of the sparseness of the rationale and the obscurity of the topics, more effort is needed to assess the taxonomic situation here.

I think your RMs would be better recieved if you (1) slowed down a touch and (2) took the time to cite specific sources and establish a little context so that can !voters can quickly understand what you're proposing and why.Cremastra (talk ·contribs)21:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me about all these, you're right. I should really fill the reason parameter with a message like my reply to Jts, instead of the laconic one I used on the parameter now. I promise I will "cite specific sources and establish a little context" as you said in the future. However, I think that I don't really need to slow down if I'm going to change my behaviour. Again, I apologize.Jako96 (talk)14:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Stub-Class Protista articles
• Mid-importance Protista articles
• WikiProject Protista articles
• Stub-Class Microbiology articles
• Low-importance Microbiology articles
• WikiProject Microbiology articles
• Requested moves