Talk:Gram-positive bacteria

message: This article should be more similar to the Gram-negative article.
Previous unsigned comment made by 70.161.65.167
:I agree, if I get any spare time I will attempt some improvements. If anyone feels like a stab it, go ahead. Mushintalk 23:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should be more similar to the [[Gram-negative]] article

message: \This article has no practical value and must be redone...I agree.  --Sugarskane 04:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has a lot of value actually. No article is ever complete, and this one is just less complete than some others. Mushintalk 12:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Correct, no article is ever done, but it still needs to be redone -- it's more a series of GP bacteria than an explanation of what it means to be GP.  --Sugarskane 15:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mushin is right, this is actually very important. I know I'm replying to a two-year old message. Some of you probably aren't even active. I know I had to look this up for science fair. DarkestMoonlight (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: This should now be addressed in the article. Schu1321 (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No practical value

message: I removed the following section from the classfication section (at least temporarily) as it seemed somewhat confusing and was unreferenced. I will look into reworking it and adding it back in, if someone else wants to look at it or revert that change, feel free. Schu1321 (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "If the second membrane (of Gram-negative bacteria) is a derived condition, the two may have been basal among the bacteria; otherwise they are probably a relatively recent monophyletic group. They have been considered as possible ancestors for the archaeans and eukaryotes, both because they are unusual in lacking the second membrane and because of various biochemical similarities such as the presence of sterols."
----------------------------------
Actinobacteria (including Corynebacterium) are not Firmicutes:
In the original bacterial phyla, the Gram-positive organisms made up the phylum Firmicutes, a name now used for the largest group. It includes many well-known genera such as Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, Enterococcus, (which are cocci) and Bacillus, Corynebacterium, Nocardia, Clostridium, Actinobacteria, and Listeria (which are rods and can be remembered by the mnemonic obconical).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.159.165 (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification - OM 

message: I believe that there should be a thorough explanation of the effects of GP vs GN bacteria on different antibiotics and the relative effectiveness of these antibiotics on the bacteria (i.e. how some are less effective on GN bacteria because they attack peptidoglycan and not the reproductive parts of the bacteria). At least a link should be posted to the antibiotic article that has this info (Actually, I'm not sure if it does have this info...) 98.110.150.204 (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Significance

message: Invite correction, to add to professionalism of  the appearance of this article.  Prof D.  Meduban (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Stepto > Strepto. --Squidonius (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Streptococcus misspelled in Gram positive heirarchy graphic 

message: with added firmness, on the basis of 16S and other molecular phylogenetic information.  Prof D  Meduban (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean by "added firmness" via phylogeny. Bacterial phyla contains several cladograms that could be copied. I can envision a small cladogram of Firmicutes orders with coloured lines to indicate Gram strain (maybe using the new cladex template), but I am not sure how that would help. The section can be however expanded greatly and there is a review paper which deals with cell structure () --Squidonius (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exceptions section needs strengthening... 

message: This article contains multiple inaccuracies and out of date emphasis. "Monera" idea is long out of date, unneeded here. An S-layer is not a "membrane." It is misleading to say that most human pathogens are Gram positive, as there are plenty of Gram negative pathogens (Salmonella, V. cholerae etc.).
--Joan Slonczewski, microbiologist at Kenyon College  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.8.51.204 (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple inaccuracies 

message: This article, well written as it is, is way too complicated for the average Wikipedia reader.  I have some medical breakdown and even with that I couldn't follow most of it.  I think it needs to be thoroughly re-written so that it reads more like a patient package insert and less like a pharmaceutical textbook. 
Risssa (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is too complicated 

message: Standard form used by the US Federal Government's Center for Disease Control is as follows:   
:gram
:Gram should be capitalized and never hyphenated when used as Gram stain; gram negative and gram positive should be lowercase and only hyphenated when used as a unit modifier.
:*Gram staining
:*gram negative
:*gram-positive bacteria
It would be helpful for this article, Gram-negative bacteria, and Gram staining  to be standardized accordingly. Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See similar thread at Talk:Gram-negative bacteria > Standardized spelling & punctuation. Quercus solaris (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Mix-and-matching these styles is not permissible on Wikipedia, per MOS:ARTCON.  Wikipedia capitalizes eponyms and other proper names, and has no special "do not capitalize if adjectival" rule; we don't care if CDC does have one.  Source usage is inconsistent, so follow WP's style manual when writing at WP.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  01:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardized spelling & punctuation 

message: The cartoon for gram positive and negative cell wall structure is confusing. It labels the red coloured bacteria as Gram positive when this article itself says that Gram positive bacteria retain the crystal violet stain and appear purple. The structures are correct but the colouring is counter-intuitive at best.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.72.132 (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagram is confusing

message: Substituted at 16:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The following was recently added to the Pathogenesis (then renamed "Clinical Considerations"):
which was referenced with this review of trials investigating the effects of probiotics on various inflammatory bowel diseases. I removed the new material because it seems like this is not a conclusion of the cited paper. The only mention of gram-positive bacteria I could find in the paper was a single mention where they note that a single primary study had reported that a group given a Bifidobacterium/Lactobacillus intervention had reduced ulcerative colitis relapse over a control group. They mention a whole bunch of other studies, and conclude  
That said, I'm certainly not opposed to having information about gram-positives as probiotics here. If someone has time to dig up some good sources, I'd be happy to help put together a section on it. Anyway, just wanted to explain the removal of material so the adder didn't think it was a knee-jerk reaction. Ajpolino (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent addition on probiotics 

message: Per MOS:EPONYM, Should capitalized eponyms (named after Hans Christian Gram) lose their capitalization when used adjectivally? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: * Support as being the form most used in the scientific literature. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "Gram negative"

message: *Support name with or without hyphen is the commonly used name in scientific and medical textbooks (recent) and on major websites --Iztwoz (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "gram-negative"

message: *Just a note that I got confused with the NGrams and searched "Gram-negative" (per the headings) and not "Gram-positive" per the page we're actually on. G/gram-positive are a bit closer: American, British, all. Ajpolino (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: Is there a good reason why the title of this article (and also that of Gram-negative bacteria) is plural rather than singular? See WP:NCPLURAL. I guess it could be argued that this article is about a class of specific things so allowed to be plural. However, articles about taxa (which are definitely classes of specific things) that are at a common language name are always at the singular, e.g. Virus not Viruses, Orchid not Orchids, Fern not Ferns, Daylily not Daylilies. The lower-case "bacteria" in the title and text shows that this is a common language use, not a scientific one. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural or singular title? 

message: The treatment of bacterial infection with antibiotics is a common and singnificant medical practice,while some antibiotics attack or dissolve bacteria cell wall others prevent them from producing proteins. 42.108.7.1 (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syndrome associated with antibiotics