Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Microbiology (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.


/2006 /2007 /2008 /2009 /2010 /2011


Cis-regulatory element / Cis-acting replication element[edit]

Dear all, thank you for reading.

I am not an expert in the field, could you advise on whether the two pages Cis-regulatory element & Cis-acting replication element are discussing the same thing.

I honestly have no idea because most things that I have read have either talked about one or the other, I haven't found any overlap.

Please advise and action, kind regards, Captain n00dle\Talk 16:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Aumatic taxoboxes[edit]

Hey! Why don't we use {{Automatic taxobox}}? It's the future! In Paleontology Project voted for changing their old taxoboxes for these others. (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
Wavelength (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Microbiology categories are a big mess[edit]

I have been going through some the the microbiology categories, mainly Category:Microbiology and Category:Bacteria. They are a real mess!! I have stripped out maybe 400 articles out of the microbiology category. It was useless for navigation. What is left needs the experts from this WikiProject to sort out to make sure it follows WP:CAT etc. Same goes for all the related categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


i've created many microbiology stubs recently. feel free to let me know if you have any pending ones which you need created. i'd be more than happy to do it. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Germ theory of disease[edit]

The article is small and not that well developed. It needs a lot of work. Anyone willing to add to it?--Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Help with explaining jargon.[edit]

I need to explain (or at least make an appropriate wikilink) the term "L forms of streptococci". I get the streptococci part, but what does the L form mean? I know some chemicals can be L or D, but I don't think this is what it means. Any suggestions? thanks... Lesion (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I missed this from the streptococcus page, "There are 20 described serotypes, named Lancefield groups A to V (excluding I and J)." so I will just wikilink to that page. Lesion (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

New animal phylum: Picozoa[edit]

I just started Picozoa. Help would be appreciated. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

From a quick look at the reference you cited, it looks as if picobiliphyte should really be moved over Picozoa and updated accordingly. SmartSE (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Inter-kingdom homonyms[edit]

Seeking comments about how to handle cases where a scientific name is homonymous across different nomenclatural codes. Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Inter-kingdom homonyms for discussion. Plantdrew (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of material on biological contamination of Earth from Mars[edit]

This probably needs some introduction first.

Origin of the concerns[edit]

Carl Sagan was concerned about back contamination of Earth, and all the official studies since then have confirmed his concerns.

The main concern is that in the worst case it could cause environmental disruption of the Earth. This is thought to be a very low probability possibility, but can't be ruled out. As a result the conclusions of studies by the European Space Foundation, and the National Research Council, is that a great deal of care should be taken for any Mars sample return.

Legal issues and need for public debate[edit]

Due to the international nature of the low probability worst case scenarios, there are also many legal issues including internationally and the domestic policies of countries other than the launching nation, and the need to involve the public in debate world wide.

Mainstream view[edit]

This is the mainstream view. There is an organization ICAMSR which is an advocacy group opposed to any return of a sample to Earth. They shouldn't be confused with this mainstream view that accepts the concern and says a return to Earth is possible but needs great care, changes of law and worldwide public consultation.

Some space colonization advocates such as Zubrin take the view that these concerns have no scientific validity but his is not a mainstream view.

All the material I contributed on this removed[edit]

An editor has removed all the material I contributed to wikipedia discussing these issues. My material was heavily cited and carefully researched. He did it on authority of an AfD of an article I wrote, which was improperly carried out in many ways.

He seems to have support of most of the other editors who have got involved in the debate so far, so am posting to other related projects, to see if I get more sympathy elsewhere where perhaps there will be editors with different views on it all.

Links to follow up more[edit]

This is a short summary of it from previous version of the back contamination issues page: Back contamination from Mars

Here is a longer treatment which I keep in my user page because I can't add this to the main space in wikipedia at present:

Mars Sample Receiving Facility and sample containment

This is about irregularities in the AfD. Previous AfD

This is WPs most recent proposal to remove everything on interplanetary contamination issues from wikipedia except for one article (plus a short page about the extreme views of the ICAMSR).

Merger Proposal III

Why I posted here[edit]

I'm not sure what to do. The admin I've been working with so far is unsympathetic, and the other editors involved in the debate so far seem to be mainly in agreement that the material should be removed, though not giving any reasons why such notable material should be removed.

I am posting to any place I might get sympathy and help about what to do next. Robert Walker (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

To explain more - I posted this because just about all material in wikiedia on planetary contamination issues has been removed over the last few weeks or replaced with material biased towards the views of space colonization advocates that the issues are of little or no consequence. I wrote most of this material, summarizing numerous notable sources as best I could.
I feel it is wrong to remove it. I proposed to address issues of bias by collaborating with a friend with opposite views to do. But that was of no avail and it seems there is nothing I can do about it.
The admin who was helping me feels that I am ""whining" about this informal topic ban, that I can't seem to get the message of the other editors. Really no-one on wikipedia apart from me seems to think it matters at all if this material is removed, though many of my friends and colleagues outside of wikipedia think it is outrageous, especially exobiologists which is why I thought to post here. Anyway it now seems to me unlikely anyone can help, but just in case anyone else feels as strongly about it as me, that the material is needed, leave this in place for now. Be aware if you do try to restore it or support my side, you will encounter fierce opposition and insults from editors totally opposed to its inclusion in wikipedia. Robert Walker (talk)username (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 21:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Have put the following extended discussion into a separate header so if anyone does want to reply you can do so here.
However, note, I have now totally given up on including this material in wikipedia. I am willing to give it a go if there is someone who is really keen to have it included, but any attempt would encounter fierce opposition and ad hominem attacks and insults from WP and BI and there are at least two other editors also now supporting them. Short of an admin incident on it all, I can't see any way forward, and don't want to do that so have give up. Robert Walker (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Update - have decided to reuse the articles I wrote for wikipedia on other sites where they are welcome, under CC By SA. Those articles of course are released under the same license. So, the content can be used here in the future if the climate of opinion on this matter changes. Robert Walker (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Extensive discussion by WP accusing me of being a SPA and spamming wikipedia[edit]

Heads up: user Robert Walker is a disruptive WP:SPA. Check his history and handle at your own discretion. Thank you. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not a SPA. Recently all my talk page discussions have been on contamination issues because a single editor took on himself to remove everything I wrote on contamination issues from wikipedia. Also before that I was engaged in a long weeks long attempt to save an article I wrote from the same editor- eventually it got deleted in an AfD.
Normally I write on many different topics. Robert Walker (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Hiding long exchange with BI. of no relevance to microbiology or the issues above. I happen to be a developer of music software which I sell. I have full disclosure of this on my user page, you can show the exchange below if interested but I assume most readers here won't want to read it.Robert Walker (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That's OK. I think as long as you are WP:CANVASSING multiple project pages in order to recruit meat puppets to your lost cause, I feel it's important that others know exactly what you are... Warren Platts (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Microtonal music doesn't count as "many"... Warren Platts (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
You seem to use Microtonal music as an insult, don't understand why. It is decidedly notable indeed many countries have significant ethnic microtonal music, e.g. Turkey with its maqams and India with its ragas, Thailand with its near seven equal tuning and so on. Historically in "Western music" the system we are all used to as twelve equal only became commonn in the C20, Chopin for instance would still have used a tempered tuning on his piano, and to this day some organs are tuned to quarter comma meantone because the long held chords sound better in that tuning, and many modern composers use microtones.
It is okay for authors of wikipedia to have diverse interests. The competence of an author for articles about microtonal music does not imply incompetence for articles about interplanetary contamination issues. Robert Walker (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, there is also the Metronome article where you threw up a wall o' text on "Criticism" of metronome use only so you could shamelessly spam your software here:
BTW I'm the author of a software metronome Bounce Metronome Pro which I've designed with the aim to introduce these rhythmic subtleties into metronome practice which normal metronomes lack. [Only $29.95!!!]Robert Walker (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Same pattern here: throw up walls o' text on your fringe POV in order to draw eyeballs to your blog and Science20 articles.... lol! BTW your website is broken. You've been obsessing at Wikipedia so much your business is starting to suffer. It might be a good idea to redirect your energies for a while. Cheers, Warren Platts (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Outrageous rewrite of my Metronome talk page post by WP. I did not add a price to my post. I did not make the product name into a link. It is good behaviour to disclose that you are an author of the software, and no-one else on the talk page commented on this, and the page itself makes no mention of my product. Robert Walker (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
That's right. The price comes from your link that you added. And your claim that you did not make the product name into a link is a lie: Here's the proof... Warren Platts (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
You are right, missed that, yes seems I did make that one occurrence into a link to the website. Was not meant as promotion and had forgotten. Can't remember now why I did it, possibly just so they know what I'm talking about. A link to my website on a talk page discussion four years ago which I'd forgotten about does not count as spamming wikipedia :). And I did not mention the price or have any call to action or anything that could be considered advertising. Robert Walker (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
As with the Manned mission to Mars page where I added material to Concerns section after a request for material, in the Metronome article I added the material in response to request for positive material on metronome use because the article as it was then was thought as being too much biased against metronome use. I disclose my connection with the software in my talk page posts. Also my user page also has full disclosure of my connection with the software I sell. Robert Walker (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The criticism section for Metronome use was already there and not written by me. I can see that WP might now try to remove all my contributions to wikipedia on any subject. If he does that I will definitely file an admin incident report on him, which I have come close to doing a few times already. Robert Walker (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Viking spacecraft biological experiments#Labeled Release, i.e. Life on Mars claimed to have been discovered[edit]

Can someone add more views to that section? Smacks of WP:FRINGE. It's currently mostly based on Levin's publications. A search in Google Books finds plenty of material... Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by fringe. In the sense of minority view valid science, yes. But not so far fringe as e.g. Chandra Wickramasinghe's theories. More like a minority view that hardly any of his colleagues seem to accept. Probably we will only know for sure if someone does a successor to Viking on Mars, carries out an identical experiment and finds out in detail what happens and why. Until then it is a case of alternate theories, and most scientists are sceptical that the found anything.
There is a later controversy section in that page but that is baised towards the Levin interpretation too. I agree, it needs clearer statement of the mainstream POV and it needs to be made clearer that his is a minority view, but I think it is an interesting minority POV, needs to be balanced by clearer statement of mainstream view. Robert Walker (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Where should KPC-Oxa 48 redirect to?[edit]

Seems to be important enough to even be stubbed (mentioned in [1]), but Wikipedia doesn't seem to have anything significantly related, at least as far as the non-expert (me) can tell. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Methylobacterium mesophilicum[edit]

Can somebody clear up the reference list in this article? Robert (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

O157:H7[edit] is a horrifying mess; along with ludicrous formatting errors, huge areas of the article having been blatantly coped-and-pasted from an external source, to the extent it has

Last Updated: May 2009 © 2009 page 5 of 10

right in the middle of one of the paragraphs-and this is marked as a top-importance article! Unfortunately I'm not remotely experienced enough with the ways of the wiki (particularly the markup language) to try to fix this myself, so I'm requesting help here. (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Microbial Solar Cell[edit]

Dear microbiologists: Is this a notable topic? Should this old abandoned Afc submission be saved or deleted? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Transporter Classification Database[edit]

Please add Wikipedia:WikiProject Transporter Classification Database to "Related WikiProjects".
Wavelength (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Archived a few threads[edit]

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update[edit]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Total free access to Royal Society History of Science journals for 2 days on March 4th and 5th !!![edit]

As Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the National Academy for the sciences of the UK, I am pleased to say that the two Royal Society History of Science journals will be fully accessible for free for 2 days on March 4th and 5th. This is in conjunction with the Women in Science Edit-a-thon on 4 March, slightly in advance of International Women's Day, on Saturday March 8th. The event is held by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, and is fully booked, but online participation is very welcome, and suggestions for articles relevant to the theme of "Women in Science" that need work, and topics that need coverage.

The journals will have full and free online access to all from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 4th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 5th March 2014. Normally they are only free online for issues between 1 and 10 years old. They are:

The RS position is a "pilot" excercise, running between January and early July 2014. Please let me know on my talk page or the project page if you want to get involved or have suggestions. There will be further public events, as well as many for the RS's diverse audiences in the scientific community; these will be advertised first to the RS's emailing lists and Twitter feeds.

I am keen to get feedback on my personal Conflict of Interest statement for the position, and want to work out a general one for Royal Society staff in consultation with the community. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 19/03[edit]

User:Kevincdick/sandbox. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 06/04[edit]

Notabe academic? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/E. Peter Greenberg. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for article reviewers[edit]

Questions have been raised about the accuracy of science articles written by the prolific author Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs). The background can be read in a regrettably long and bad-tempered thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive835#Harassment. If you do not want to read the whole thing, start here. To her credit, Cwmhiraeth has initiated Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth. It would help to generate light, rather than more heat, and to decide whether there is a serious problem, if scientifically-qualified editors uninvolved in the row could review some of Cwmhiraeth's articles and comment at the editor review. JohnCD (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Links to archived thread updated. JohnCD (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Explain what the certain above-level terms are![edit]

If you want people to understand the page, For the higher-level terms like "Pathogenesis", explain what it means! Otherwise, the page is useless. (Well, useless to people like me.) (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Anonymous Individual


The usage of Microbiota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Microbiota -- (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Royal Society journals - subscription offer for one year[edit]

I'm delighted to say that the Royal Society, the UK’s National Academy for science, is offering 24 Wikipedians free access for one year to its prestigious range of scientific journals. Please note that much of the content of these journals is already freely available online, the details varying slightly between the journals – see the Royal Society Publishing webpages. For the purposes of this offer the Royal Society's journals are divided into 3 groups: Biological sciences, Physical sciences and history of science. For full details and signing-up, please see the applications page. Initial applications will close on 25 May 2014, but later applications will go on the waiting list. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Still places here! Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for COI review of John Postgate (microbiologist)[edit]

Could someone please look over this article, as both contributors have a COI; me as Wikimedian-in-Residence at the Royal Society, of which Postgate is a fellow (so basic notability is not an issue), and him as the author of most of the text, which I edited slightly and posted. Ideally someone could add more on the significance of his research & publications, which I rather downplayed in view of the COI situation. I'm no expert but I see he crops up in basic accounts of nitrogen fixation, microbial survival, and sulphate-reducing bacteria etc, and is described as a "father figure of British microbiology" on the first page here. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 26/05[edit]

Draft:Bacterial Outer Membrane Vesicles. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Canine parvovirus[edit]

Canine parvovirus is up for GAR at Talk:Canine parvovirus/GA2. Jamesx12345 16:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Copy and paste issue[edit]

An issue within this topic area being discussed here Wikipedia_talk:MED#Copy_and_pasting Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Nitrosopumilus maritimus[edit]

In this article about N. mar. is a wrong Phylum for this species: Its no longer part of Crenarchaeota. The new Phylum is Thaumarchaeota [Brochier-Armanet et al., 2008] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:540:9E8:5893:CE95:15CD:42A6 (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Launch of WikiProject Wikidata for research[edit]

Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Mueller-Hinton agar[edit]

The article on Mueller-Hinton agar provides the recipe (w/v):

30.0% beef infusion 1.75% casein hydrolysate 0.15% starch 1.7% agar pH adjusted to neutral at 25 °C.

According to the recipe provided by several standard suppliers (e.g. Sigma), beef infusion should be 0.2%. Everything else is consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Most written about bacteria we're missing[edit]

Desulfovibrio desulfuricans, a good candidate for a new article.
  1. Clostridium pasteurianum, Clostridium (Clostridia, Firmicutes)
  2. Actinomyces bovis, Actinomyces (Actinobacteria, Actinobacteria)
  3. Azotobacter chroococcum, Azotobacter (Gammaproteobacteria, Proteobacteria)
  4. Desulfovibrio desulfuricans, Desulfovibrio (Deltaproteobacteria, Proteobacteria)
  5. Rhizobium trifolii, Rhizobium (Alphaproteobacteria, Proteobacteria)
  6. Rhodopseudomonas viridis (synonym) = Blastochloris viridis, Blastochloris (Alphaproteobacteria, Proteobacteria)
  7. Agrobacterium radiobacter (synonym) = Rhizobium radiobacter, Rhizobium (Alphaproteobacteria, Proteobacteria)
  8. Erwinia herbicola, Erwinia (Gammaproteobacteria, Proteobacteria)
  9. Bacillus circulans, Bacillus (Bacilli, Firmicutes)
  10. Streptococcus cremoris (synonym) = Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris
  11. Actinomyces viscosus, Actinomyces (Actinobacteria, Actinobacteria)
  12. Corynebacterium glutamicum, Corynebacterium (Actinobacteria, Actinobacteria)
  13. Streptomyces antibioticus, Streptomyces (Actinobacteria, Actinobacteria)
  14. Acholeplasma laidlawii, Acholeplasma (Mollicutes, Firmicutes)
  15. Lactobacillus lactis (synonym) = Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. lactis
  16. Enterobacter agglomerans (synonym) = Pantoea agglomerans, Pantoea (Gammaproteobacteria, Proteobacteria)
  17. Rhodobacter capsulatus, Rhodobacter (Alphaproteobacteria, Proteobacteria)
  18. Haemophilus aegyptius, Haemophilus (Gammaproteobacteria, Proteobacteria)
  19. Corynebacterium pyogenes (synonym) = Arcanobacterium pyogenes, Arcanobacterium (Actinobacteria, Actinobacteria)
  20. Thiobacillus denitrificans, Thiobacillus (Betaproteobacteria, Proteobacteria)

These are the binomial names of bacteria species which we don't have articles for, sorted by the number of books or volumes they are found in. Each appears in at least 943 books or volumes. Many of the synonyms just need a redirect (or perhaps a disambiguation page). All the species already have genus-level articles, but if you're looking to add more species-level articles, these could be good candidates. Data sources are Google Books ngram data and Catalogue of Life. (P.S. Wikipedia already has articles or redirects for 98 of the top 100 "most written about" bacteria species/binomials. This will be 100 of 100 when items #1 and #2 are no longer red links.) —Pengo 00:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Victivallis vadensis[edit]

Can someone look at this article? It hasn't been added to any categories and there are problems with the references. gidonb (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on potential article: Supergroup_(biology)[edit]

There is a discussion about whether an article called Supergroup_(biology) should be created, but the term appears to have different usages in eukaryotes, bacteria, and viruses. Please weigh in at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#We_apparently_need_to_create_an_article_for_Supergroup_(biology). Cheers! --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Lactobacillus seriously needs to be improved[edit]

I really think the Lactobacillus article has a lot of things that need to be fixed, including but not limited to the reliability of sources, the structure of this article, and lots of unreferenced content, as well as lots of important missing information. I would really appreciate if anyone could help raise this article to at least a C-class rating :)

Reliability of sources and Unreferenced content[edit]

That article really needs some more reliable sources to prove the information on it. Firstly, some claims such as the dental caries thing, does not have any sources that prove it. The source being used simply states a hypothesis, and is not sufficient to prove the effects of Lactobacillus on teeth. There are no sources about the metabolism of the bacteria as well.

Structure of article[edit]

I think that the structure of the article seriously needs to be fixed. It is lacking essential information. The sections list things that are very specific, and often are not the most important, but have too much content. Look at E. coli's page, which itself is being graded as a Good Article. Its structure is clear, the general topics are mentioned and the article then zooms in to the more specific topics. Lots of general information e.g. its biochemistry and its genetics, are missing from this article. Some sections such as taxonomy and metabolism need some serious fixing and expansion.

Fazbear7891 (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

New Essay[edit]

There is a new essay, "Identifying primary and secondary sources for biology articles", you are invited to comment on.DrChrissy (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)