Talk:Phylum

	Geology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Cambrian explosion task force (assessed as High-importance).

Palaeontology Mid‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tree of Life High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life 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.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

For other discussion on this topic see Talk:Phylum (biology)

Miozoa and Sulcozoa

Both of them are available on Wikipedia, but not under those names, instead you can get their pages by searching "Myzozoa" and "Cercozoa". Can somebody edit it so it shows the correct/different spelling and have a link?

Tree of Phyla

Latest comment: 5 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should this entry not aim to show the tree of phyla and the relationship between them - eg the close link between chordates and echinoderms and the grouping of animal phyla into bilateral and radial groups? [unsigned]

No, there's no reason for that: this article's focus is the single concept "Phylum", not an analysis of all known phyla, let alone a discussion of all their relationships (that is grossly off-topic, and would overlap with multiple other articles on those groups). By the same token, there is no good reason for the section "Known phyla" in this article. The article properly discusses definitions of "Phylum" and the history of the term, back to Haeckel's creation. There is no reason to overlap massively with Animal, Plant, Fungus, and Protista, let alone Bacteria and Archaea. For one thing, all those have "Main" articles, and per SUMMARYSTYLE, the most we should have there is a brief summary of those articles; but the case is worse than that, as we should not be listing all phyla in an article on the concept, it's just off-topic. I shall cut down the chapter now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Would a "List of phyla" article be appropriate? TennisFish from Earth (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply