Talk:Bacteria

message: 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) 
:I'll ask whether it is time to un-protect this page. In the meantime, you can request changes to be made to the page using :Template:Edit semi-protected. - Donald Albury 14:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Unlock

message: 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)
replies: text: Given the comment above, probably not. Graham Beards (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: An IP whose first edit is to complain about the cabal gave me pause, but ten years is a long time to keep an article locked. - Donald Albury 18:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to remove protection? 

message: The nomenclature usage in the article seems confused. This CDC source  says:
:"Italicize family, genus, species, and variety or subspecies. Begin family and genus with a capital letter. Kingdom, phylum, class, order, and suborder begin with a capital letter but are not italicized. If a generic plural for an organism exists (see Dorland’s), it is neither capitalized nor italicized.
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)
replies: text: Italicize Family? That does not accord with :Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Scientific names. - Donald Albury 18:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately not many families are mentioned. We only have (not including the citations) Enterobacteriaceae and Hydrogenophilaceae, which are (and have been for a very long time) in italics to worry about. It seems odd that Wikipedia and CDC differ on this. Graham Beards (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I got curious about why we do not italicize family names. :Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms also explicitly says to italicize at the genus level and below. I don't see any obvious discussion of whether families should be italicized in :Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting. The only discussion of italicizing family names that I found in :Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Organisms is in the section :Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Organisms#Viruses, which was a discussion of when to italicize family and genus names in articles about viruses. A quick Google search for "italicize family names" finds several sites saying to limit italics to genus and below, while some sites say to use italics for families, and, in at least one case, even for higher levels. - Donald Albury 21:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, the meanings are different; the suggestion is not accurate. Graham Beards (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thoughts, the whole sentence is dated and unhelpful.Graham Beards (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021 

message: Whether or not Eubacteria is a sister to Archaebacteria is litigious and thus not to be stated as a fact.
:Sorry, you can't use a recent primary study to contest "archaea have a separate line of evolutionary descent from bacteria". I have deleted your addition. Please provide a fuller argument here. Graham Beards (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: 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)
replies: text: There are prokaryotes other than bacteria. The terms are not synonyms. Graham Beards (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Yes, you have a point but for many years, and certainly during my lifetime, "billion" had two definitions: originally it meant a million million, but now it pretty much universally means a thousand million in most English-speaking communities.  So, "a thousand million" is probably better here in my view. Graham Beards (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "They constitute a large domain of prokaryotic microorganisms." 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, you have a point but for many years, and certainly during my lifetime, "billion" had two definitions: originally it meant a million million, but now it pretty much universally means a thousand million in most English-speaking communities.  So, "a thousand million" is probably better here in my view. Graham Beards (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  GEEK TALK 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for you feedback. See Nitrogen cycle. What were the other "inaccuracies in the first few paragraphs"? Graham Beards (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Schizophyta