This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bacteria article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Bacteria is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 20, 2007, and on April 27, 2023. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization: |
Other talk page banners |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
What, the evolutionary cabal that run Wikipedia lock another page, surely not? Scared of the truth guys?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.225.34 ( talk)
The article has been protected (autoconfirmed) for a little over ten years. Is it time to try un-protecting it? - Donald Albury 14:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The nomenclature usage in the article seems confused. This CDC source [1] says:
Mycobacterium tuberculosis
family Mycobacteriaceae, order Actinomycetales
mycobacteria
Binary genus-species combinations are always used in the singular. Genus used alone (capitalized and italicized) is usually used in the singular, but it may be used in the plural (not italicized) if it refers to all species within that genus.
Salmonella enterica is…
Salmonellae are ubiquitous…"
I think we should only be using upper case initial letters when we are talking specifically about the family or genus. For example, when referring to Mycobacteria in general we should write mycobacteria. - Graham Beards ( talk) 11:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Simplify, concise.
Change:
Most bacteria have not been characterised, and only about 27 percent of the bacterial phyla have species that can be grown in the laboratory.
To:
Most bacteria have not been characterised, and only about 27 percent of the bacterial phyla species can be grown in the laboratory. UniversalHumanTransendence ( talk) 20:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Some concerns - "and only about 27 percent of the bacterial phyla have species that can be grown in the laboratory" in the lead, and doesn't seem to be in the body
There's some more stuff like that, but I'm not seeing any major issues and this does not required FAR, so marking as satisfactory at URFA/2020. Hog Farm Talk 02:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Whether or not Eubacteria is a sister to Archaebacteria is litigious [1] and thus not to be stated as a fact.
References
First line, - They constitute a large domain of prokaryotic microorganisms.
The word "domain" is used in a confusing manner regarding the context of the article. Further confusion arises where it links to the page on biological tree of life level "domain"
Bacteria, is already, the domain.
The word "domain" in this sentence needs to be changed as it confuses whether "bacteria" is in fact, a "domain" , or if prokaryotes are the "domain"...
In otherwords, this sentence is currently saying - They (the domain that is bacteria) constitute a large domain of the domain. We are saying that bacteria domain, make up a large portion of the bacteria domain. UNLESS we remove the contextualisation of the biological connotations of the word "domain". But surely, within an article of this nature that is biology, we should hold contextualisation within a biological nature. The word domain, already has a definition in biology, and we shouldn't use it in place of other words, in a sort of pseudo-idiom style... To put simply, in the context of the sentence, and it's true intention, the word 'domain' is near synonymous with the word 'proportion' YET it links to the definition of "domain" in the domain system of taxonomy.
We cannot use the word "domain" uncontextualised within this nature of article, that is, we cannot use the word domain, as a synonym for "proportion". Within this article, domain should always, and only be used, with reference to the tree of life/three-domain system of taxonomy definition.
Thus I suggest the re-wording, domain should be changed to a more suitable word such as proportion in this particular sentence. 2407:7000:986C:1300:A082:FCA4:A46:E866 ( talk) 18:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Why "a thousand million"? Why don't we use regular language like a billion in regular articles? Do we say 188 one-eighth inches rather than a yard? This is wikipedia, not a sscientific journal. Common plain language is preferred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.241.34 ( talk) 20:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
"Humans and most other animals carry millions of bacteria" is such a profound understatement that it's shocking and mildly horrifying that this statement is okay for a Wikipedia article that may be a source of learning about bacteria and their ubiquitous presence for hundreds(?) of people. This absolutely should be rephrased as "Humans and most other animals carry trillions of bacteria." There is no scientific or reason-based argument against making this update. Disfucwhcrfgs ( talk) 08:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
This text needs some copy editing, as several sentences are misleading as written. E.g. "Bacteria play a vital role in many stages of the nutrient cycle by recycling nutrients such as the fixation of nitrogen from the atmosphere". Nitrogen fixation is de novo nutrient acquisition, not nutrient recycling. I found several such . 2001:4645:B2FC:0:F04E:4210:8C3E:8247 ( talk) 17:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I am quoting from the wikipedia article on cyanobacteria: Historically, bacteria were first classified as plants constituting the class Schizomycetes, which along with the Schizophyceae (blue-green algae/Cyanobacteria) formed the phylum Schizophyta ... With this in mind shouldn't the name Schizophyta redirect to Bacteria and not just Cyanobacteria? kupirijo ( talk) 11:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bacteria article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Bacteria is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 20, 2007, and on April 27, 2023. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization: |
Other talk page banners |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
What, the evolutionary cabal that run Wikipedia lock another page, surely not? Scared of the truth guys?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.225.34 ( talk)
The article has been protected (autoconfirmed) for a little over ten years. Is it time to try un-protecting it? - Donald Albury 14:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The nomenclature usage in the article seems confused. This CDC source [1] says:
Mycobacterium tuberculosis
family Mycobacteriaceae, order Actinomycetales
mycobacteria
Binary genus-species combinations are always used in the singular. Genus used alone (capitalized and italicized) is usually used in the singular, but it may be used in the plural (not italicized) if it refers to all species within that genus.
Salmonella enterica is…
Salmonellae are ubiquitous…"
I think we should only be using upper case initial letters when we are talking specifically about the family or genus. For example, when referring to Mycobacteria in general we should write mycobacteria. - Graham Beards ( talk) 11:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Simplify, concise.
Change:
Most bacteria have not been characterised, and only about 27 percent of the bacterial phyla have species that can be grown in the laboratory.
To:
Most bacteria have not been characterised, and only about 27 percent of the bacterial phyla species can be grown in the laboratory. UniversalHumanTransendence ( talk) 20:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Some concerns - "and only about 27 percent of the bacterial phyla have species that can be grown in the laboratory" in the lead, and doesn't seem to be in the body
There's some more stuff like that, but I'm not seeing any major issues and this does not required FAR, so marking as satisfactory at URFA/2020. Hog Farm Talk 02:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Whether or not Eubacteria is a sister to Archaebacteria is litigious [1] and thus not to be stated as a fact.
References
First line, - They constitute a large domain of prokaryotic microorganisms.
The word "domain" is used in a confusing manner regarding the context of the article. Further confusion arises where it links to the page on biological tree of life level "domain"
Bacteria, is already, the domain.
The word "domain" in this sentence needs to be changed as it confuses whether "bacteria" is in fact, a "domain" , or if prokaryotes are the "domain"...
In otherwords, this sentence is currently saying - They (the domain that is bacteria) constitute a large domain of the domain. We are saying that bacteria domain, make up a large portion of the bacteria domain. UNLESS we remove the contextualisation of the biological connotations of the word "domain". But surely, within an article of this nature that is biology, we should hold contextualisation within a biological nature. The word domain, already has a definition in biology, and we shouldn't use it in place of other words, in a sort of pseudo-idiom style... To put simply, in the context of the sentence, and it's true intention, the word 'domain' is near synonymous with the word 'proportion' YET it links to the definition of "domain" in the domain system of taxonomy.
We cannot use the word "domain" uncontextualised within this nature of article, that is, we cannot use the word domain, as a synonym for "proportion". Within this article, domain should always, and only be used, with reference to the tree of life/three-domain system of taxonomy definition.
Thus I suggest the re-wording, domain should be changed to a more suitable word such as proportion in this particular sentence. 2407:7000:986C:1300:A082:FCA4:A46:E866 ( talk) 18:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Why "a thousand million"? Why don't we use regular language like a billion in regular articles? Do we say 188 one-eighth inches rather than a yard? This is wikipedia, not a sscientific journal. Common plain language is preferred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.241.34 ( talk) 20:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
"Humans and most other animals carry millions of bacteria" is such a profound understatement that it's shocking and mildly horrifying that this statement is okay for a Wikipedia article that may be a source of learning about bacteria and their ubiquitous presence for hundreds(?) of people. This absolutely should be rephrased as "Humans and most other animals carry trillions of bacteria." There is no scientific or reason-based argument against making this update. Disfucwhcrfgs ( talk) 08:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
This text needs some copy editing, as several sentences are misleading as written. E.g. "Bacteria play a vital role in many stages of the nutrient cycle by recycling nutrients such as the fixation of nitrogen from the atmosphere". Nitrogen fixation is de novo nutrient acquisition, not nutrient recycling. I found several such . 2001:4645:B2FC:0:F04E:4210:8C3E:8247 ( talk) 17:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I am quoting from the wikipedia article on cyanobacteria: Historically, bacteria were first classified as plants constituting the class Schizomycetes, which along with the Schizophyceae (blue-green algae/Cyanobacteria) formed the phylum Schizophyta ... With this in mind shouldn't the name Schizophyta redirect to Bacteria and not just Cyanobacteria? kupirijo ( talk) 11:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)