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 /2012 /2013 /2014

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)

@Pengo: Yes check.svg Done! All of these have now been created; anyone who wants to is encouraged to flesh out the stubs that were created :) Rambunctious Racoon (talk) 09:57, 23 December 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)

S. antibioticus review[edit]

Hi everyone,

I recently submitted an AfC for review (as it is my first article and I hear that that is good practice), and would love if one of you would review it. It's very much a stub currently, but I'd like to do my best to make it at least C-class. Rambunctious Racoon (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done several months ago; thought I would add the tag just to make clear what is and remains to be done. Rambunctious Racoon (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

What are the species of Morbillivirus?[edit]

The article says..."There are currently six species in this genus,"

But it does not list what they are. That would be a good thing to add to the article. (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Haemospororida article has misleading name, maybe move to Haemosporida[edit]

Hi there. When I was searching for the taxon Haemosporida, I was surprised to only find an article about "Haemospororida". Apparently this isn't the correct name for the taxon? For example, when you search for scientific articles about"Haemospororida" on Pubmed you find 5, whereas when you search for "Haemosporida" you find 38,339!! Hence, the current statement "(sometimes called Haemosporida)" in the article is clearly wrong.

I also added this comment on the Talk page of the article, but I don't think it attracts much attention. My suggestion would be to move the article to Haemosporida (currently there is a redirect). Ilikelifesciences (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Green tickY Done! Ajpolino (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


Dear microbiology experts: I found some references for this draft article, but I don't really understand the subject. Is this draft about a notable subject, and are the references appropriate?—Anne Delong (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Took a look and left a note on the talk page! Ajpolino (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
With the improvements made by Ajpolino, I have accepted the draft. Thanks!—Anne Delong (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about external links[edit]

See close below. Cunard (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

[1] pertaining to bacteria articles Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I am one of two editors inserting external links into bacterial species articles to the according type strain in the database We are researchers, working for the german non-commercial research institute DSMZ. We started this as a project to provide additional information for bacterial type strains (which are ~10,000), since many of these strains are poorly described. We are not able to improve thousands of wikipages, also the data of our database are complex and diverse and can not be incorporated into wikipedia. Though our links provide useful scientific data regarding various aspects e.g. taxonomy, morphology, physiology, growth conditions, media recipes, isolation source, molecular biology and so on. Before starting this, we looked up the guidelines and found for Wikipedia:External links "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." So, our content is absolutely accurate and on-topic and the amount of detail is too high to incorporate. That's why we thought, this would be the right way to do it. By inserting those links we stumbled over a lot of links to other databases, (as for example to Encyclopedia of Life or to which also provide additional information as we do. So we felt confirmed in our doing. I really would appreciate if you rethink about the roll back, since we really offer high quality research data as additional information to the wikipedia users and we do not have any commercial interest or advantage. I am open for questions. L.C.Reimer (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Here is a link to our most recent publication PMID 26424852 free fulltext--L.C.Reimer (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
This seems to me to be an appropriate link per our external link guideline. Plantdrew (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Hm. The information in the database looks useful. In certain cases I think the links are appropriate. However, in cases like this at Salmonella enterica or here at Leuconostoc mesenteroides where you turn the external links section into a block of BacDive links, I don't think that is appropriate. The basic issue was raised on the WP:MED discussion that the database focuses on strains and we rarely have separate articles for strains. If you have a type strain which represents the species, that link is (in my opinion) fine. But I would be against adding a pile of links to every relevant strain in your database. Ajpolino (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I admit that in some few cases, when there were only a handful of subspecies, we added several links to the respective subspecies type strains as these subspecies were also mentioned in the infobox. I thought this would be useful for the user, as long as this does not exceed 3-5 strains (there are a lot of cases, where we haven't linked the subspecies, since there are too many of them). But usually we only linked the according type strain. If there is a consensus, that we have to limit to one link per species page, we would be perfectly fine with it.--L.C.Reimer (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
IMO this is database information that belongs in Wikidata. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Doc James can you say more about how that would work? Two levels - the WikiData level the Wikipedia level. On the WikiData level, do you mean that fields would be set up in WIkiData to receive and store data directly mapped from the Bacdive database, or do you mean one field in WikiData would be set up to have a link to an entry in BacDive? Then on the article level, do you mean that fields would be set up in Template:Taxobox to be updated from the Bacdive-filled fields in WIkiData, or just a single new field in the Taxobox that would receive the link to BacDive from Wikidata? complicated... (to me at least) Jytdog (talk) 06:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I would think the fields could be put in wikidata to accept. And then the discussion could occur regarding putting that data in the infobox on the associated infobox page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
What kind of data do you think to integrate into wikidata? Since we offer about 140 different data fields with different kind of data formats per strain, this seems to be not feasible. Also the data fields are not filled for all strains. Additionally we regularly update our database, which would mean the data in wikidata has also to be updated, which would be impossible.The only way we see that would work would be using our web services So independent from that, we think the easiest way to provide the user with comprehensive, up-to-date information about type strain is the external link. AnnaVetci (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaVetci (talkcontribs) 06:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
The earlier discussion at WT:MED suggested a copyright issue, but I don't see why. The data is not a creative expression, just a structured list of facts, links, or identifiers. As such it should not be eligible for copyright in the first place. The only way there could be a concern is if there were embedded images or free text fields. If so, these should not be incorporated to WP without further consideration. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
So, how is this going to continue? Several voices confirmed that our links are guideline conform. Although we probably should have asked/discuss before. We see no straight forward way to integrate BacDive data into wikidata, but we are still open in this regard. In the meantime I want kindly ask to undo the deletion of our links. I see the links independant from wikidata as the best way for the user to get comprehensive, up-to-date information about the species associated type strain (for those who are not familiar with type strain, in bacteria this is the strain a species is defined on / first described.)I would be happy to get some response. --L.C.Reimer (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Good question. I'd say there appeared to be consensus that adding BacDive links to bacteria articles is fine (and indeed beneficial!). As for undoing the mass rollback, that falls above my pay grade. Perhaps @Doc James: or @CatPath: would be able to help with that. The Wikidata bit is an interesting discussion, but it doesn't look like anyone is willing to take that on and I'm not sure there was any kind of consensus over whether that could be done.
As an added note (for which there was certainly no consensus, so we could talk more elsewhere or maybe someone else would like to comment) I would like to reiterate my concern about several links being added to a single article. I think it it atypical for articles to carry multiple external links to the same database. My general feeling is that if we have an article on a species (for example, Salmonella enterica) and your database only has information for the various subspecies, then perhaps you should just wait until the article for the subspecies is created (or better yet, if you feel the subspecies is well-described in the literature, create the article yourself or convince someone else to do it!!). Alternatively, if there is some "type subspecies" (e.g. maybe Salmonella enterica subspecies enterica?) then perhaps you could just link to that entry in BacDive as a representative of Salmonella enterica. I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of others on this. Thank you for your patience! Ajpolino (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

For consensus for adding a few thousand links we should have a RfC. Can put one together if people want. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

That would be great! Thanks for taking the time! Ajpolino (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
With respect to adding these if consensus is for it. We could add the url to Wikidata by bot for each of the items that matches some identifier. Than as it would be a property within Wikidata it could be added to all infoboxes through one line in Template:Taxobox if people want. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Doc James, sounds like a good solution. As identifier only the species name is available, but this will work. If the other people agree, I would provide the according list.--L.C.Reimer (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I started a property proposal here: d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Natural_science#BacDive_ID. Mapping BacDive IDs to Wikidata is a good idea. Are there any ideas for any other data we should gather and source from BacDive. I have also written a mail to the database owners to make the licensing information more prominent. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC regarding EL[edit]

There is a clear consensus to include a few thousand of the external links to the website to the corresponding articles. Cunard (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should we add a few thousand of these external links to the corresponding articles? The link is to the website

And example of one of the links is here which was on the article Leptospira broomii. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


  • Support - Seems relevant and helpful. Sizeofint (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Short of a few thousand links per page, I can't see it causing any harm, especially with the links at the bottom of the page. Anyone reading those pages either will want the links or know enough to ignore them. If we have the tools or the contributors to manage them they could be a valuable service. JonRichfield (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – I support linking to this resource, it appears useful and serious. One question though, could it be done via Wikidata? i.e. define a new Wikidata property pointing to the ID on this website, then use a template to pull that ID from Wikidata and form the URL based on that? I think that is a more elegant solution, even though it is more work to setup. If we had a specific infobox template for microbes (i.e. not just Taxobox) then the template could automatically do this without anything extra required on the pages using that infobox. SJK (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes definitely possible through Wikidata. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Particularly as Bacdive leads to further sources of relevant information. Maproom (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. It looks like a useful tool. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support; suck links bring valuable information to the table. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Support; I edit a lot of bacteria articles and this would be an amazing resource. Also, I am all for changing the infobox for microbiology so that linking to this site is a bit easier. I like that better than making this site an external link. Great find Doc James! Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  17:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm strongly opposed to placing a link in the infoboxes. This is a relatively new database. There are older databases that have the same information. We shouldn't be relying on a single source for taxonomic information. CatPath (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
We could make a box of external links and place it in that at the end of the article. I too am not a big fan of putting it in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


  • Oppose. I don't question that this would be a helpful resource for some readers, but why promote this database over other similar ones that are better established and kept up-to-date (at least with the bacteria I'm interested in)? I'm also wondering what happens if the web address changes or if the database loses funding and disappears? We'll be left with a lot of dead links to clean up. CatPath (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
CatPath I just gave some information about the background and the sustainability of BacDive below. I would be interested in what you meant by "other similar ones that are better established and kept up-to-date"? BacDive is a relatively new database (first published 2012) though to our knowledge, there is no comparable database at the moment. Please keep this discussion alive. L.C.Reimer (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Two that have been around for a while are the LPSN (which you mention below) and the NCBI Taxonomy Browser. There's also the GCM [2]. CatPath (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Doc James earlier provided an example of a link ([3]) that was added to the article Leptospira broomii. I noticed a few problems when I took a look at the Leptospira pages in the BacDive site. The site provides information on only 14 of the over 20 species of Leptospira. There are at least six species of Leptospira missing, including Leptospira biflexa, a prominent species (at least among those who study spirochetes) that has been known for decades. The LSPN and NCBI sites list the species that are missing from the BacDive site. I also noticed that the wrong minimum culture temperature is listed in all of the Leptospira pages. CatPath (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
CatPath, you are comparing apples to oranges. BacDive is not a taxonomy service, it is a database for metadata about bacteria and archaea. We offer a taxonomy service Prokaryotic Nomenclature Up-to-date separately, which provides monthly updated manually curated taxon data and where you will find Leptospira biflexa and the other missing species of Leptospira. In BacDive we have integrated the taxonomy from this service for our 53,978 strains. When it is all about taxonomy we should talk about PNU, not about BacDive. But the idea was to give users a link with additional scientific information about the species, represented by the type strain. The mentioned wrong minimum culture temperature is a nasty error that is known to us and that will be fixed with the next update end of august. L.C.Reimer (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

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.


I little more info about who maintains and publishes this site would satisfy my curiosity. I don't see a home page. Here is how the reference is formatted by my Chrome browser and the Wikipedia ref generator:[1]

  Bfpage |leave a message  17:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


  • Here some short infos about the background of BacDive and it's long term sustainability: BacDive is hosted at the DSMZ which is the german culture collection for microorganisms and cell cultures. Data in BacDive originate from four main sources, that are internal descriptions of culture collections, expert compiled compendia, the taxon reference list “prokaryotic nomenclature up-to-date” (PNU) and primary scientific literature. By publishing data from internal culture collection descriptions and mobilizing data from expert compiled collections we make unique data collections public accessible. The PNU (also hosted at the DSMZ) provides monthly updated manually curated taxon data. To our knowledge BacDive is unique in terms of provided data and coverage of strains, though there is also LPSN which is restricted to taxonomy data. BacDive is updated at least once a year, though we work on a shorter update cycle. As one of the world’s major culture collections, the Leibniz-Institute DSMZ is an ideal host for BacDive. Due to its function as an infrastructure facility the sustainability and long-term maintenance of the database can be guaranteed. In consequence also our IDs are stable and will be long-term accessible. I hope that we can find a consensus about where BacDive data/link will be placed. L.C.Reimer (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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.

Auto-assessment of article classes[edit]

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 01:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Bacterial morphological plasticity[edit]

Bacterial morphological plasticity is a hefty referenced article that could use some expert attention to assess, edit, and deorphan it. Thanks, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphan no more.
  Bfpage |leave a message  17:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Need another pair of eyes[edit]

Unfortunately, I make a lot of errors when I create microbiological articles and expand content in articles. I know some editors enjoy proofreading as one of their editing activities. First let me thank those who 'clean up' after me with my sloppy editing. I am requesting that an editor take a look at List of human flora, especially the content that I have recently added since I'm pretty sure that I may not have formatted everything correctly. Thank you so much. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

A merge discussion is taking place here to determine whether Gene and Genomic organization should be merged. Seems important. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Bacdive ID on Wikidata[edit]

Hi all! Bacdive ID is now a property on Wikidata: d:Property:P2946. I am currently adding 10k identifiers with a bot. Going slow, so I can check on the bot. It will probably be finished within a day. Here is a query of all the IDs currently on Wikidata: d:Property_talk:P2946#Query_of_all_the_IDs. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, rather than adding Bacdive as a stand alone external link as was discussed above, may I suggest including it through {{Taxonbar}}? Taxonbar links to external biodiversity databases that have identifiers in Wikidata. Support for Bacdive would need to be added to Taxonbar. Plantdrew (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Plantdrew, at the moment the idea is to place the BacDive links in a box of external links. Although it is a good idea to place a BacDive-ID/link in the Taxonbar, I suspect that the BacDive link is reduced to its taxonomy data, as the label says 'Taxon Identifiers'. So I would favor doing both, placing the BacDive ID within the Taxonbar and in an additional box for external links, which gives the opportunity to declare, what the user can find behind the link. L.C.Reimer (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Bromocresol purple[edit]

I'd appreciate if someone could check (and improve on, if desired) my recent edit to Bromocresol purple. I created the article a decade ago, but I am neither a chemist nor a microbiologist so I'm not confident in how accurately I'm reading these journal articles. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the message! I'm no chemist so I won't be able to do much for any chemistry-flavored parts, but I'll take a look at the uses section and the papers used there! Ajpolino (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


Congratulations to Project Microbiology! The article Uterine microbiome was featured as a DYK today! Barbara (WVS) (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Unassessed articles < 100 words[edit]

I see that there are ~2000 unassessed articles in WP:MICRO. 929 of these have < 100 words, going by AWB's word count. I can mass-assign |class=Stub to these (or to some other numerical cutoff), if there's support from project members.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  04:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)