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. 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)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.

The Valid Name's Kingdom Promethearchaeati.

The valid name's for the Asgard superphylum is the kingdom Promethearchaeati. The page needs to be moved or at least have a change in the taxobox. Jako96 (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The cited source does not propose such a name. Where did you get it? Mlvluu (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

It does propose and the article states that. The source: Promethearchaeum syntrophicum gen. nov., sp. nov., an anaerobic, obligately syntrophic archaeon, the first isolate of the lineage ‘Asgard’ archaea, and proposal of the new archaeal phylum Promethearchaeota phyl. nov. and kingdom Promethearchaeati regn. nov. | Microbiology Society Jako96 (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I was referring to the source cited in the taxobox.

In any case, no, it's not; that would be the name for a superfluous junior kingdom; the paper does not substitute a name for the superphylum rank, . Mlvluu (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Fixed the source in taxobox. Jako96 (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Move Request

This page should be moved to Promethearchaeati or at least "Asgard" (Archaea) because the valid name's Promethearchaeati and the Asgard is published invalidly. Jako96 (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

This proposal comes under the article title policy and particularly under the "commonly recognizable names" section of the policy. Basically, the most commonly used English name is usually the correct choice for the title name. An official name, if different, should usually appear in bold near the bolded title name in the initial sentence (or at least paragraph) of the introductory text, and there should be a redirect page using that name leading to the article.

For this article, at this time, I believe the current Asgard (Archaea) title is the correct choice because currently that is the most widely known and used term for the clade. The recent name Promethearchaeati may in a few years become more commonly recognized than Asgard, and at that point we can easily change the title. As to the "scare quotes" title version, I think that doesn't fit Wikipedia's approach to titling articles. -- R. S. Shaw (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

It does fit. There have been article names like that. For example: "Jingia" Jako96 (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

"Jingia" isn't an article, it's a redirect to the Jingiella article, as shown here. -- R. S. Shaw (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

But it was the article's initial name. Then someone published a new name - that name was Jingiella - so they moved the article. Jako96 (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh wait actually the initial name was "Jingia" dongxingensis. See: Jingiella - Wikipedia Jako96 (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

And Asgard isn't even English. Asgard isn't even a well-known name for public. Jako96 (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

How is it published invalidly? Mlvluu (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The "Asgard" name does not meet with ICNP's standards. LPSN also states that: Superphylum: Asgard Jako96 (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Please do not keep changing the name to "Promethearchaeati" without gaining consensus for it. Multiple people have already disagreed with your changes, so it might be seen as disruptive to keep pushing them without a consensus. One option would be to open a Wikipedia:Move request to gain consensus. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I was gonna do that already. Jako96 (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 2 April 2025

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

---

Asgard (Archaea) → PromethearchaeatiPromethearchaeati – I think we should make the title the valid name. There is no reason to keep the old name as the word "Asgard" isn't even common to public. Jako96 (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom. Cremastra _talk 22:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: This topic section is essentially a continuation of the discussion in the previous section ("Move Request").

• This proposal comes under the Article titles policy. That Wikipedia policy focuses on 5 criteria: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Concision, and Consistency. At least three of these are affected by the policy consideration given in the section "Use commonly recognizable names". That policy section says that the title should usually be determined by prevalence of usages in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources.

Assessing the terms used for this article's subject by searching is complicated by the word "Asgard" (borrowed from Swedish), which is most commonly used in the context of Norse mythology, but has also been used in the context of Archaea for about a decade and a half. Since the discovery of the relation of the Archaean group to the eukaryotes, "Asgard" has been seen use in the (semi-) popular press (e.g. the NY Times) as well as the scientific press. The alternative "Promethearchaeati" does not have this sort of complication since it is newly coined.

The best way I have come up with for fairly assessing the prevalence is to search the scientific literature from this year and from last year (the official name was approved last year, maybe in July). I have done this using the Google Scholar search site (on 16 Apr). The results from searches for the words being in article titles (e.g. allintitle: asgard with range 2024-2024) were:

Year	Term in Title	Biology Articles	Cites & Other Articles
2024	Asgard	21	28
2024	Promethearchaeati	2	0
2025	Asgard	8	2
2025	Promethearchaeati	0	0

This shows that "Asgard" is at present the predominant way to refer to this clade of Archaea. Once "Promethearchaeati" shows similar or better prevalence over "Asgard", I think the article should be moved to the new name. Until then I Oppose renaming the article. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per R. S. Shaw. "Asgard" appears to be the most predominantly used name, and there isn't any evidence that it is considered by the scientific community to not be a valid name. In fact, looking at the published literature, the only two to use "Promethearchaeati" are the paper that coined the name and a piece by one of its authors discussing how they conducted their research. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, I forgot about this discussion. I guess we are not moving it then. Jako96 (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2025 (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.

Consideration of Mid-Importance to WikiProject Microbiology

I think this page should be considered of mid-importance to WikiProject Microbiology. Jako96 (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

"Odinarchaeia" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Odinarchaeia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 18 § Odinarchaeia until a consensus is reached. Jako96 (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2025

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

---

Asgard (Archaea) → Asgard archaea – Asgard archaea is the common name of this kingdom. See WP:COMMONNAME. Jako96 (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NATDIS. "Asgard archaea" has 2,690 Google Scholar hits, 76 hits on Wiley, and 238 at Springer. Whether or not this is the true "common name", this shows sufficient usage to support the proposed title as natural and recognizable. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom and comment by Myceteae. Usage of "Asgard archaea" is common enough to justify the renaming. The Morrison Man (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Nice! I used Template:Db-move on Asgard archaea. Let's wait. Jako96 (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Wait I had to wait 7 days actually. Okay let's wait. Jako96 (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, wait the standard 7 days and let an uninvolved editor confirm consensus and make the move. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Agree

Yeah, those apostrophes can go, in my opinion. CheckNineEight (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Agree — Snoteleks (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

And we should also use the word Asgard archaea without quotes in text. Because such papers also use the phylum "Ca. Asgardarchaeota" and use the common word Asgard archaea. See https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08955-7, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43705-021-00048-6 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.syapm.2024.126525. See https://gtdb.ecogenomic.org/tree?r=p__Asgardarchaeota and https://registry.seqco.de/names/33331 (they state that the name "Ca. Asgardarchaeota" is commonly referred as Asgard archaea). Jako96 (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2025 (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.