This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.
Welcome!
FYI: Supergroup Disparia is coming?
Have you already noticed this preprint? The long awaited publication with the description of a new basal-group eukaryote Solarion arienae is here, with proposals of new taxons (supergroup Disparia, clade Membrifera, phylum Caelestes, family Solarionidae) and changes in the Diaphoretickes tree basal topology (overview in Extended Data Fig. 10, in more detail in the SupplementaryData1.pdf linked at the end of the preprint). I hope the review will allow the early publishing. Petr Karel (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Petr Karel: I would point out that we should be very wary of using taxa not supported by secondary sources, such as taxonomic databases. Ideally we should never use a single journal article as the only source. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there is no need to hurry with changing the wiki artices (I am not Jako96). But it is important to know, there are different hypotheses and the presented true is relative. (I like mentioning such competiting hypothesis as a note, the user should know about. But of course after the hypothesis is reviewed and published in a solid journal; that is why I inform about it only on a User talk page.) Petr Karel (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Petr Karel They're really going for it? I didn't know about the preprint but I've been told about Disparia being the new name for the Hemimastigophora+Provora+Meteora clade. I don't know why they chose the name Disparia when the name Diaphoretickes pretty much means the same. However Solarion is definitely news to me. I'll check out the preprint today, thanks! — Snoteleks (talk)10:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are right with the scope of Disparia. But Diaphoretickes is a much more inclusive clade, including not only the proposed Disparia but also the supergroups SAR, Haptista, (Pan)Cryptista and Archaeplastida. Placing Disparia inside Diaphoretickes is fully in compliance with the original cladistic definition of Diaphoretickes in Adl-2012; this definition is also the best support for the position of Diaphoretickes and its basal orphans in eukaryotic taxoboxes (I noticed some recent discussions about it). Petr Karel (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Petr Karel Sorry, I didn't mean they were the same clade; I meant that the etymology of both Diaphoretickes and Disparia are extremely similar. To my knowledge, both names simply mean "organisms very different from each other" — Snoteleks (talk)11:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this might be wrong. I never looked up what Diaphoretickes actually means, it seems to be something to do with perspiration or transmission. — Snoteleks (talk)11:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I tired you so much but this is the last. I think we should either use SAR in taxoboxes or change CRuMs with "CRuMs". Because ISOP states that CRuMs is informal (therefore technically invalid). See: [1] What do you think? Jako96 (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jako96 Well sure, but it doesn't reflect scientific consensus. Most papers don't use quotation marks when labeling CRuMs (as far as I know). And I thought we as editors concluded that quotation marks in the taxonomy template system was disagreed upon, as I remember — Snoteleks (talk)12:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jako96 I see what you mean, but unlike Sar, CRuMs does not have a formal taxonomic description (same with TSAR, CAM, and so on). It would be like if there was no Animalia or Metazoa and we could only put Animals in the taxobox. Sure, people regularly just say Animals, but we all know the taxonomy templates are for the formal taxa when present. When they're not present, we just use the informal names, without quotation marks. — Snoteleks (talk)12:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jako96 A formal or taxonomic description is different than just saying there's a clade of diphylleids, rigifilids and mantamonads. It has to have a diagnosis like Sar (e.g., «the most inclusive clade containing Mantamonas, Rigifila and Collodictyon but excluding Homo sapiens, Arabidopsis thaliana and Euglena viridis»some kind of morphological or molecular diagnosis). Also, if there ever is a formal description of CRuMs (which hopefully there will be in the next Adl et al. release), it will probably not have the name CRuMs but a different name that is only capitalised in the first letter. I'm not sure if Crumalia had a formal description, but there's probably a reason why it's not scientific consensus — Snoteleks (talk)16:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 3 July 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nucleariid, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that nucleariid amoebae are among the closest relatives of fungi? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nucleariid. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Nucleariid), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi, someone has just changed "SAR" to "Sar" at Eukaryote, probably at many other places too. It seems to me that whatever may be done in the taxonomy hierarchy over at WikiData, there is no good reason not to use the standard form SAR used by biologists worldwide throughout Wikipedia. I agree with you that the usage is a confusion. Some sort of discussion will be needed as it's a mess at the moment. Would be great if you could get it sorted out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 26 August 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Diaphoretickes, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the name of Diaphoretickes, a group containing a huge diversity of organisms including plants and kelps, is derived from a Greek word meaning diverse? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Diaphoretickes. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Diaphoretickes), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi there! I wanted to let you know I recently undid your move and disambiguation for Agarum. List items on disambiguation pages need at least one blue link. At present, the genus Agarum doesn't have an associated blue link, so it's inappropriate for a disambiguation page list item. If you want to create the genus page, feel free to do so, then you can create the disambiguation. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Significa liberdade I was already in the process of creating the genus page, so I will do the move again. But you should probably know that this disambiguation page is not unique; I have come across many genus disambiguation pages that only have one blue link. Sometimes, not even any blue links. — Snoteleks (talk)18:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Significa liberdade I think you're not necessarily wrong on doing this, but MOS:DAB also states "Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics." Per WP:SPECIES, accepted genera (such as Agarum here) are presumed to be notable, therefore someone is in the future likely to make the red link blue. I still think it's a good thing that you acted on it, since it incentivices editors to turn those red links blue. — Snoteleks (talk)19:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Later in that same section (MOS:DABRED), the guideline states, "Red links should not be the only link in a given entry". As such, you would need to include another link. We also do not have a Wikipedia page for the family, so it wouldn't make sense to include that link either. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I need your help: In the Asgard archaea page, you see the phylogeny with the Eukaryota, right? For that phylogeny, I tried to show "Ca. Heimdallarchaeia" as paraphyletic (it contains the orders "Ca. Wenzhongarchaeales," "Ca. Hodarchaeales", "Ca. Gerdarchaeales" and "Ca. Heimdallarchaeales" using the |grouplabelN= feature, but it didn't work. When I try it, the "Ca. Heimdallarchaeia" doesn't appear as containing the order "Ca. Hodarchaeales". Can you do it for me? Jako96 (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
