Talk:SAR supergroup

Protista High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Protista, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of protists and protistology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ProtistaWikipedia:WikiProject ProtistaTemplate:WikiProject ProtistaProtista
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Algae High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Algae, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the photosynthetic organisms commonly called algae and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AlgaeWikipedia:WikiProject AlgaeTemplate:WikiProject AlgaeAlgae
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 20 April 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved from Sar supergroup to Sar (clade). The result of the discussion was not moved.

Please explain within the text

"This is a node-based definition in which all of the specifiers are extant; qualifying clause – the name does not apply if any of the following fall within the specified clade – Homo sapiens Linnaeus 1758 (Opisthokonta), Dictyostelium discoideum Raper 1935 (Amoebozoa), Arabidopsis thaliana (Linnaeus) Heynhold 1842 (Archaeplastida), Euglena gracilis Klebs 1883 (Excavata), and Emiliania huxleyi (Lohmann) Hay & Mohler in Hay et al. 1967 (Haptophyta)"

Please explain within the text exactly what this means for the reader looking for information about the SAR supergroup that the name does not apply if humans are part of the clade or a little plant is part of the clade. MicroPaLeo (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done doing requests, a little passive-aggressive for my tastes. Node-based is linked, if you want to have a go at it yourself.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article talk page, let's try to be focused on the article and address personal issues elsewhere. It has no meaning within the context of the topic, so I am removing it. MicroPaLeo (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 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. (non-admin closure) Jako96 (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sar supergroup → Sar (clade) – I think it should be like CAM (clade). Jako96 (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page title should use the name of the taxon unless disambiguation is needed. Sources use SAR supergroup. You could argue for using SAR, but there is no need for the disambiguator. Also some studies don't recover it as a clade unless other taxa are included. — Jts1882 | talk 10:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, SAR is usually referred to as a supergroup in eukaryote phylogeny. Noting that I also oppose the undiscussed move from SAR supergroup to Sar supergroup, and would support reverting it to the original, more commonly used acronym. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. And, as the person above said, you also performed an undiscussed move from SAR to Sar. Even though the accepted name is Sar, the most common name is still SAR, which prevails according to WP:COMMONNAME. — Snoteleks (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As noted, "supergroup" is the usual term, and also helps to identify this as a "high-level" lineage. Deuterostome (Talk) 14:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 20 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. The issue was only just discussed above in the withdrawn RM. There is a clear consensus against the proposal. The page is reverted to its original longterm title — Amakuru (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sar supergroup → SAR (clade) – I think it should be like CAM (clade). Jako96 (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. RMs aren't computers, closing them and reopening them won't fix the issues. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well. See: User talk:Jako96#Please stop these edits Jako96 (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Sar or SAR in Text?

Should we use Sar or SAR in text? The taxobox uses Sar (the formal name). Jako96 (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you search the terms on Google Scholar, using phrases such as "Sar supergroup" or "Sar clade", I think you'll find that the all-caps SAR acronym is by far the more common form in the scientific literature. The formal version of the name, Sar Burki et al. 2008, emend. Adl et al. 2012, occurs quite infrequently, in my experience. So, I would lean toward using SAR in the text, and retaining the formal name for the taxobox. I don't feel too strongly about it, though. Deuterostome (Talk) 21:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should use SAR in taxobox too. Because Stramenopila was the formal name under the PhyloCode but we used Stramenopiles (both text and taxobox). So, I think we should just abandon Sar at this point. Also it becomes more compatible with TSAR. Jako96 (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I changed my mind. Because ISOP recommends Stramenopiles. Let's continue to use Sar in the taxobox. Jako96 (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2 things. SAR us the dominant off-wiki usage; and it's messy and inconsistent to use both SAR and Sar. Let's do the sensible thing and stay with SAR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Let's do that. Jako96 (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But someone has to delete Template:Taxonomy/SAR first. Then we can move the existing template to there. Jako96 (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 Why'd you do that? This is a discussion for maintaining SAR in the text, not in the taxobox. We already discussed maintaining Sar in the taxobox. — Snoteleks (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind. We should use one name only, I think. Jako96 (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sar or SAR. Let's stay with one. Jako96 (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can use Sar if we want to do what ISOP says. We can use SAR if we want to use the more popular name. Jako96 (talk) 08:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 SAR for text, Sar for taxobox. I will stand firmly by that. — Snoteleks (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. It's confusing. And for phylogenies will we use SAR or Sar? Jako96 (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 Is it confusing that animals are also called metazoans in your opinion? — Snoteleks (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed feelings on this. SAR is the informal name for the supergroup given by Burki 2007/2008 and Sar is a formal taxon name defined by Adl et al (2012). I must confess I didn't realise this until recently and thought the lower case was just a personal preference for the name used for the informal group. So I think we can refer to the SAR supergroup or the taxon Sar. We shouldn't use Sar supergroup as we don't use Amoebozoa supergroup or Opisthokonta supergroup or Archaeplastida supergroup. While I'd agree with the impression that SAR is more common that Sar, is there any other case where we use an informal name over a defined taxon name, especially in the taxobox? Or can SAR supergroup be considered a vernacular name and be used as the Wikipedia common name? If yes, the article should be named SAR supergroup and Sar should be used in the taxobox and either is valid in the text, like using Mammalia and mammal interchangeably. However, this would confusing for a taxon that is far less well known than Mammalia/mammal and Metazoa/animal. — Jts1882 | talk 09:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty ordinary to use informal group names alongside formal ones in the text of an article. Maybe the anticipated "confusion" is a red herring, and we don't need to overthink this? I don't believe people have much trouble with the idea that alveolates belong to a group formally known as Alveolata, or that members of Ciliophora are also called ciliates. Most readers are already familiar with similar usages, e.g. mammals for Mammalia, and I doubt they are baffled by the fact that cryptists belong to a group called Cryptista, peritrichs to Peritrichia, etc. With SAR, the construction of the informal name is a little different, since it is an acronym, but that is well explained in the text. If need be, a line could be added to the etymology section, explaining that the informal acronym was formalized in 2012, as Sar Burki et al. 2008, emend. Adl et al. 2012. Deuterostome (Talk) 12:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deuterostome Exactly. It shouldn't be that hard to understand this. — Snoteleks (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then what should we use in the name parameter of the taxobox? SAR, or Sar? Or maybe "SARians" or "Sarians"? Jako96 (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 I've never heard of such names as Sarians or SARians. I would simply use "SAR clade" or "SAR", due to being the common names. But frankly I almost never use the name parameter. — Snoteleks (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yazaki et al. preprint

@Jako96, @Jts1882, I think it could be fruitful to discuss here whether the preprint should be included or not. I would personally lean towards no, as it hasn't been fully peer-reviewed yet and the phylogeny is already well-cited. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence on whether it should be included, but strongly against removing it as self-published. That's why I reverted it. bioRxiv is an established place for published preprints and is widely used. In some cases the papers never get published, but usually they do. Given the known authors on this paper it most likely will. As a sole source for something controversial then it would probably be a bad idea, but as a corroborating source for information supported by other published work I see no issue. I'd ask why is it so important to remove it from this article. It's currently being used as sole reference for the article on Glissandra. — Jts1882 | talk 13:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jts1882 I agree 100%. Using it as the sole source? No. Using it (and explicitly stating that it is simply a proposed source of taxa) along with other sources? Yes. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Glissandra page states that it is only proposed. But yes, now I also think there is no problem using it here. I'm adding it again. Jako96 (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like there is a consensus to add it back, great! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it to the talk page. I suppose somewhere there is a discussion on bioRxiv preprints. I like them as it provides up to date information, but I wonder how they fall within Wikipedia rules on sourcing. Peer-review isn't necessary (e.g. many books) but is important for the scientific literature. — Jts1882 | talk 18:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]