Talk:Asgard (Archaea)

Six viruses specific to Asgard archaea

I came across these items about six viruses unique to Asgard archaea.

• Rambo, Ian M.; Langwig, Marguerite V.; Pedro o; Anda, De; Baker, Brett J. (2022-06-27). "Genomes of six viruses that infect Asgard archaea from deep-sea sediments". Nature Microbiology: 1–9. doi:10.1038/s41564-022-01150-8. ISSN 2058-5276. Retrieved 2022-06-28.
• "Scientists Discover New Details about Metabolism in Ancestors of All Complex Life". College of Natural Sciences, University of Texas at Austin. 2022-06-27. Retrieved 2022-06-28.

I thought someone more knowledgeable about the subject could decide if & how to weave this into the article. Peaceray (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Has been added on 2. Jul. 2022‎. Current status: None has been approved by the ICTV. However some Verdandaviruses and Skuldviruses have been proposed. See https://ictv.global/files/proposals/pending?fid=7366

--Ernsts (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Unstable details ... in great detail ...

Pace the above thread, we are weaving a deal of very recent, unstable, and uncertain claims into the article as fact. Putting in a big long list of redlinked phyla, classes, orders and possibly even lower taxa makes no sense when the phyla themselves are uncertain (and that really is big-scale uncertainty, like saying we think it's a species of worm but we don't know if the annelids are a phylum or not). I've removed the worst of the taxojunk, and have listed the NCBI phyla: I don't really think we can do better until knowledge improves a bit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

As Eukaryotes appear to have emerged here, classical phyla, classes and orders will be impossible to incorporate without triggering taxonomic inconsistencies (as elsewhere). Jmv2009 (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Probably so. Fournier and Poole 2018 are entertaining on the whole question. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

But with Eukaryote WITHIN Asgard, it's double trouble. "Eukaryales" according to Ettema. [1] Jmv2009 (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Like arguing that ants and bees aren't wasps, you can get bitten and stung from every direction... Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Established reference format

Just realized that until last summer, this article had an established reference format for its authors of Last, First. Sure, a couple of errors had crept into the formatting, but that was how it was. Then, bang, an editor saw fit to shove the whole article into Vancouver. This is plainly contrary to policy, so I've put it back. I do hope not to see this happen anywhere else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 10 October 2024

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: moved. (non-admin closure) Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 16:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Asgard (archaea) → Asgard (Archaea) – Archaea should be capitalised to signify that it is the domain, not the common name, which excludes eukaryotes. Grey Clownfish (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support: Per MOS:LIFE :"Higher taxa (order, family, etc.) are capitalized in Latin (Carnivora, Felidae) but not in their English equivalents (carnivorans, felids)". Archaea, in this case used as the Latin name of a domain should be capitalized. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:12, 14 October 2024 (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.