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)

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)

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)