User talk:Snoteleks

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Welcome!

FYI: Supergroup Disparia is coming?

[edit]

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]
You first added about Glissandrida and Glissandra to CRuMs page with this edit. But I agree about my fault. Jako96 (talk) 06:51, 4 August 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]
Nope, I was right. It's from Greek diaforetikés, which means disparate, dissimilar. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nucleariid

[edit]

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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Sar" at Eukaryote

[edit]

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]

@Chiswick Chap I believe it got reverted recently based on our changes at Diaphoretickes, it says SAR in Eukaryote now. I'll take a look anyway — Snoteleks (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good. The edit comment said the opposite! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was confused by that as well haha — Snoteleks (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Diaphoretickes

[edit]

The article Diaphoretickes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Diaphoretickes for comments about the article, and Talk:Diaphoretickes/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Diaphoretickes

[edit]

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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

[edit]

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]
If the disambiguation pages only have one linked page, they should be deleted or redirected per my understanding of MOS:DABNOLINK. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:04, 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]
@Significa liberdade Ah, now I understand. That makes sense. And thank you for re-creating the DAB. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Thanks for creating the genus article! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help

[edit]

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]

@Jako96 Yes, I can help. What's the reference for the cladogram exactly? — Snoteleks (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That's the reference about "Ca. Heimdallarchaeia" for the cladogram. Jako96 (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jako96 I don't understand, you said Heimdallarchaeia is paraphyletic but in figure 3 it's monophyletic, am I missing something? — Snoteleks (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Check extended data fig. 5a. It's at the bottom of the page. Jako96 (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jako96 If I understand correctly, you want the bottom part of the left hand cladogram to look like this:
"Ca. Heimdallarchaeia"
Peter coxhead (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! But I'd prefer green. Also, I'd want a wikilink on "Ca. Heimdallarchaeia". Jako96 (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter coxhead @Snoteleks So, will you do this for me? As I said I couldn't do it, for some reason everytime I try the "Hodarchaeales" gets excluded. Jako96 (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry for the delay, I have had some troubling weeks. Let me know if the new edit is satisfactory @Jako96. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I did some changes too. Jako96 (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what I meant in this edit's summary is that in the left phylogeny, if taxa's subgroups are not shown then that means that either they are monotypic or don't have any subgroups. For example "Heimdallarchaeales" order is not monotypic, it contains two families and they should be shown, just like the articles cited for the phylogeny. Jako96 (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Podiata

[edit]

I'm pretty sure that Podiata is monophyletic with solid support, and you also used it in your cladogram collection. Do you think we should add this clade to the automated taxobox system? Jako96 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 I think so, yes, especially after the Torruella et al. 2025 paper (doi:10.1016/j.cub.2024.10.075). — Snoteleks (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Then, can you support me in this discussion? Jako96 (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, does Adl et al. themselves say that they only use taxa with formal description? If so, we can just rank their diatom "-phytina" clades as subphyla. Jako96 (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jako96 We should not make such decisions until there's a solid, cohesive ochrophyte classification. Chrysista and Diatomista can be interpreted as subphyla themselves, too. There is just not enough consensus of anything for us to decide on any ranks for ochrophyte clades. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]