Talk:Halobacteria

Two meanings?

This seems to be the name of a particular class, as well as the generic name for this group of organisms, which is perhaps why the name "Halomebacteria" is given by some as the class name. If the latter becomes firmly established as the class name (I'm not a specialist in this area, so I have no idea if it is already - and apologies if I have this wrong), we can split, but for now, I've made it into more of a standard class article. Noel (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted. When a class contains only a single family, it doesn't make sense to treat them on different pages; the set of organisms in each is exactly the same. Josh

Why are there two articles?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merge done. The only reasons for keeping Halobacteria as stated below are for the sake of continuity. A redirect and proper description will take care of that, as per User:Evercat. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If halobacteria are more correctly known as haloarchaea, like the note at the top of the page says, first off, why is this article titled Halobacteria in the first place, and why is there another article (haloarchaea) about the same organisms? I think there should be some sort of merging going on here.Pfzngn 00:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's something I've been sort of meaning to start discussing and doing. However, the two pages should remain, but the purpose of each needs to be streamlined/clarified. I'm thinking that Halobacteria should be reserved for purely taxonomic purposes (it's the historical taxonomic name from before they knew about Archaea - and important therefore from a taxonomic perspective) but the haloarchaea page should contain most of the detail, as that's how they're known now, and how you would expect people to search for them. Once the duplicated information is moved, the Halobacteria page will essentially be a useful reference while the Haloarchaea page would become a relatively full-bodied article. Natronomonas 22:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a simple redirect with all content at haloarchaea. That page can then mention the historical reasons for why they used to be called halobacteria. Evercat (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable, there is no need to keep content at the historical name when the new one is more correct. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also another article entitled Halobactium that should be combined. 70.230.176.130 (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Judy Ogilvie[reply]

Haloarchaea should be merged to halobacteria, rather than the other way around. The taxonomically correct name is still 'Halobacteria', even though they are not bacteria. The origin of the name 'Halobacteria' is historical, but the designation is still correct according to the rules of taxonomy. Haloarchaea is just a loose descriptive term for any halophilic archaeon, with no real scientific meaning. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haloarchaea is the current term and Halobacteria is obsolete. The two articles on Halobacteria and Haloarchaea should be merged into a single article with the latter name. The taxonomy also needs to be updated, as proposed in DasSarma P, DasSarma S: On the origin of prokaryotic "species": the taxonomy of halophilicArchaea. Saline Systems 2008, 4:5(http://www.aquaticbiosystems.org/content/4/1/5). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.3.92 (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2012 (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.