Talk:List of Archaea genera

@User:Jako96 I don't want to excuse User:Videsh Ramsahai for his uncited edits (and so breaking the main Wikipedia rule of verifiability), but I would like to know your positions to phylogenomically proven archaeal/bacterial clades with missing or duplicated valid/pro-valid publication of the taxon names according to LPSN and to their possible paraphyly. Giving the absolute preference to LPSN without commenting weak points of such approach could be sometimes problematic.

I will use the examples from the reverted last Videsh Ramsahai's edit (IMHO, some of the changes may be recovered):

1. New clades or redefined taxa with only primary reference with the diagnosis based on phylogenomic evidence or with cladistic definition. Example: Sukunaarchaeum" Harada et al. 2025 (diagnosis based on GTDb in https://doi.org/10.1101%2F2025.05.02.651781)

   Should such taxa/clades be mentioned in this article for readers, who ask wikipedia after finding such taxon name in web? (To place it inside the "official" LPSN hierarchy would be problematic, but a special section "Proposed taxa" or similar could be used, of course with a proper reference in both cases.)

2. Taxa validly published according to the SeqCode (competiting with the ICNP and so not accepted by LPSN) and phylogenetically classified in GTDb or NCBI taxonomy. Example: Njordarchaeia Xie et al. 2022 (LPSN: "not pro-validly published", but listed by NCBI and identified by last two releases of GTDb

   Should such taxa/clades be mentioned in this article and placed inside the "official" LPSN hierarchy or at least as a footnote?

3. Clades with a long-time confirmation by GTDb, but being covered by the para- or polyphyletic taxon with valid publication according to LPSN. Example: Methanobacteriota B, split off the "main" Methanobacteriota for last four GTDb releases, with children class Thermococci, validly published under the ICNP

   Should such taxa/clades be mentioned in this article and placed inside the "official" LPSN hierarchy or at least as a footnote?

   Should the paraphyly of the LPSN taxon be explicitly mentioned in this article (with reference to GTDb) or only as a footnote or (as it is now) only presented in a cladogram figure?

4. Redefined Candidatus according to cultivated species; LPSN includes both names but without their identification as synonyms. Example: Candidatus Methanomethylicia corrig. Vanwonterghem et al. 2016 -> Methanosuratincolia Wu et al. 2025 (accepted by NCBI, diagnosis in https://doi.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.006839)

   Should both taxa/clades be mentioned in this article (and commented why, when they share some children taxa), or only the validly published name (without the pro-valid synonym), or with the pro-valid name mentioned as synonym only in a footnote? (Only the primary source, not LPSN can be the reference for "synonym".)

   Why the subsection to Methanosuratincolia was deleted again, when it is based on LPSN and, as many other sections, has the implicite reference in the second sentence of the article?

Petr Karel (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think giving the absolute preference to LPSN is good either. Honestly, I think that Wikipedia classification should generally follow NCBI. Jako96 (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but that answers none of my 5 questions. Petr Karel (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Well:

1. Such taxa should be mentioned, but we shouldn't "place" it in the LPSN hierarchy because that would be WP:SYNTH.
2. Again, I see no reason to not mention them in this article. LPSN can be used for such taxa, even if they are not validly/pro-validly published. After all, pro-validity is a new thing to ICNP, but LPSN did contain such names for years.
3. It depends on the clade. And again, we can't place them in the LPSN hierarchy, because that would be WP:SYNTH.
4. Yes, we should generally mention common synonyms. I reverted both of Videsh's edits because they both contained WP:OR and unsourced info, so I just reverted them entirely for good, after all, I don't have the time to check all of these edits and revert them partially.

Jako96 (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)