Talk:List of sequenced bacterial genomes

message: I spent six hours creating this table. I have checked and checked the Wiki help pages and I do not know what is wrong with it that it will not display. The references show up. Can someone please take a look at the page source and fix the table? Thank you,
Nick Beeson (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just edited the table, please check if I messed up the information when fixing the syntax.--Seba5618 (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help With Table

message: I've added a reference for the genomes listed as "Unpublished". I assumed that all the genomes "placed in a public database on the WWW" were deposited with the INSDC (GenBank etc.). '''
If any of the "Unpublished" sequences are not in the INSDC database, please tell me; I haven't checked every one.
This might also be done to the List of sequenced archeal genomes but not to the List of sequenced eukaryotic genomes, which uses a different format (it has an Organization column, though it lumps all PubMed refs together).
These lists of sequenced genomes are wonderful; really useful for a quick overview. 
HLHJ (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Unpublished" refs

message: At least one of these (Brucella abortus) represents the 2nd chromosome of a genome. I suspect that quite a few others are the same, but there was one case that looks at first sight like a duplicate entry of the preceding line. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Unspecified" rows"

message: The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) has a much more comprehensive list available on sequenced prokaryotic genomes.  See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/lproks.cgi, and select "All bacteria" from the "organism group" drop-down box.  Its layout, which includes dates on which the genomes were first released and last modified, seem like it could be a good framework to build upon.
Also, since the other two lists of sequenced genomes (archaeal and eukaryotic) seem to be based on the  three-domain system of taxonomy, a more appropriate title for this article may be "List of sequenced bacterial genomes".  Looking at the NCBI's method of organizing this information, it seems they also use "bacterial" instead of "prokaryotic".  What do others think about renaming this article, replacing "prokaryotic" with "bacterial"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emw2012 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful NCBI resource, suggested renaming

message: I attempted to scrape this page & noticed inconsistent column naming. I addressed it by renaming "GeneBank Identifier" and "Genebank Identifier" columns to "GenBank Identifier". I did this for consistency across tables. I chose "GenBank Identifier" to be consistent with the spelling & camel case used by GenBank itself.
Cosmicaug (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Renamed GenBank Identifier

message: I've been looking at this and I am wondering if, as currently shown on this page, using the current title with the currently shown data set does not misrepresent the current state of bacterial genome sequencing data available. The title of this article, List of sequenced bacterial genomes, somewhat implies that some effort has been made to make the shown data comprehensive (or, at least, something approaching that —obviously that as a goal is not realistic with new genomes being added constantly). Of course, I am aware that this may very well have been the case at one point as this dataset only grows as time passess.
It does not call to mind a that what is being shown is representative data set that is much smaller than the actual set of known sequenced bacterial genomes. And yet, looking at https://gold.jgi.doe.gov/and selecting organisms in the "BACTERIAL" domain and selecting only projects with a status of "Complete and Published" I get a total of 14852 projects. That's a far cry from the 417 projects listed on the Wikipedia page (off by over one order of magnitude). Even if looking at the number of genuses represented (by looking at the first word of the GOLD project name), we still get more entries at 1152 projects. 
Perhaps the title of the article should be changed to something like List of some sequenced bacterial genomes?
Cosmicaug (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a misrepresentation of the state of bacterial genome sequencing?