Talk:Nosema apis

Fungi Mid‑importance

	Fungi portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Agriculture Low‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Please - someone, anyone - edit the English in this page. It is almost unintelligible. I'd do it but, to be honest, there are lots of instances where I cannot discern the writer's intent. 24.85.234.200 (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of temperature on Nosema apis

There seems to be a conflict within this article concerning durability of the microsporidian to temperature extremes. In the first paragraph, it is said, "The dormant stage of N. apis is a long-lived spore which is resistant to temperature extremes . . . ". And yet, under 'Treatment', it is said, "Heat treatment in 49 °C (120 °F) for 24 hours can be used to kill the spores on contaminated equipment." It would be helpful if these sentences could be clarified.

Renamed

Nosema has now been reassigned to Vairimorpha: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31738888/ - should this be renamed, along with N. ceranae? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:4F00:500:2101:C1A1:5266:4498:8F9C (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised the request for this rename on [Requested Moves](Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests). As it does need moving really. NCBI also lists N. Apis as V. Apis now, with N. Apis as the basionym. I'm happy to publish some edits for review. Cypher8912871 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests - I'm also an idiot who can't compartmentalised various markup languages :) Cypher8912871 (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted edit for Vairimorpha apis changes. Just need someone to sort out the Taxobox template for it; that'd be handy. :) Cypher8912871 (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cypher8912871: Mycobank here still accepts the placement in Nosema, which concerns me a bit. But I can construct a taxonomy template so the taxobox works if you get the article moved and re-edit it. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taxonomy/Vairimorpha now created. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the technical move of Nosema apis since there does not yet appear to be a consensus. If you guys reach a conclusion the move request can be resubmitted. EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that's concerning? Mycobank being out of date too? You should try the Index Fungorum - that still lists N. apis as Protozoa. It's not been Protozoa since 2006.

Thanks for creating the taxo template. Having that for Vairimorpha is a good idea regardless as there is already a genus page on wiki, which coincidentally lists V. apis and V. ceranae as constituent species. Both of which head to our Nosema apis and Nosema ceranae pages respectively.

I've a suspicion that we won't reach consensus on here regardless of how much rumination the topic receives, given that the internet is still awash with references to N. apis being protozoa 17 years after reclassifying; and even with most up to date papers listing N. apis as V. apis (formerly Nosema apis), the Wiki still needs to play Chicken-or-Egg with common names versus taxonomically correct nomenclature.

I'm not invested enough to want to fight for the egg, but the edit is there if editors want to utilise it in future. Cypher8912871 (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cypher8912871: I agree that the articles under Nosema should be moved. I could move them, but the issue will be cleaning up this article in particular as the old name is mentioned many times in the text. Your version here still contains multiple uses of Nosema and N. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left some of the historical references to Nosema apis and N. for the sake of clarity prior to reclassification. These can be changed though. Outside of the next points, it makes sense to change them.

There's also references to the colloquailism Nosema from within the beekeeping community which arose from the Nosema in Nosema apis (obviously) - These are still accurate, and V. apis' prior taxonomy should probably be noted as the root of said colloquialism within the article, for the avoidance of confusion.

Nosema ceranae also accounts for some (all?) of the N. cernae, which is V. apis' sister. That article is also on my list of updates, as N. ceranae has also been reclassified to V. ceranae. Given that N. apis is more well known, I thought I'd start here. Cypher8912871 (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: I can perform the move, and if everyone is happy with my suggestions in the above comment, I will move the page, redo the edits and fix historical taxonomic references to V. as well. Cypher8912871 (talk) 08:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cypher8912871: definitely move the page. If beekeepers use "nosema" as the colloquial name, then it's fine if in lower-case (like "azalea" or any other former genus name still used in ordinary language). Peter coxhead (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]