Talk:Bacteria

Time to remove protection?

The article has been protected (autoconfirmed) for a little over ten years. Is it time to try un-protecting it? - Donald Albury 14:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Given the comment above, probably not. Graham Beards (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

An IP whose first edit is to complain about the cabal gave me pause, but ten years is a long time to keep an article locked. - Donald Albury 18:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomenclature

The nomenclature usage in the article seems confused. This CDC source [1] says:

"Italicize family, genus, species, and variety or subspecies. Begin family and genus with a capital letter. Kingdom, phylum, class, order, and suborder begin with a capital letter but are not italicized. If a generic plural for an organism exists (see Dorland’s), it is neither capitalized nor italicized.

Mycobacterium tuberculosis

family Mycobacteriaceae, order Actinomycetales

mycobacteria

Binary genus-species combinations are always used in the singular. Genus used alone (capitalized and italicized) is usually used in the singular, but it may be used in the plural (not italicized) if it refers to all species within that genus.

Salmonella enterica is…

Salmonellae are ubiquitous…"

I think we should only be using upper case initial letters when we are talking specifically about the family or genus. For example, when referring to Mycobacteria in general we should write mycobacteria. -Graham Beards (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Italicize Family? That does not accord with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Scientific names. - Donald Albury 18:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Fortunately not many families are mentioned. We only have (not including the citations) Enterobacteriaceae and Hydrogenophilaceae, which are (and have been for a very long time) in italics to worry about. It seems odd that Wikipedia and CDC differ on this. Graham Beards (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I got curious about why we do not italicize family names. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms also explicitly says to italicize at the genus level and below. I don't see any obvious discussion of whether families should be italicized in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting. The only discussion of italicizing family names that I found in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Organisms is in the section Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Organisms#Viruses, which was a discussion of when to italicize family and genus names in articles about viruses. A quick Google search for "italicize family names" finds several sites saying to limit italics to genus and below, while some sites say to use italics for families, and, in at least one case, even for higher levels. - Donald Albury 21:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021

Simplify, concise.

Change:

Most bacteria have not been characterised, and only about 27 percent of the bacterial phyla have species that can be grown in the laboratory.

To:

Most bacteria have not been characterised, and only about 27 percent of the bacterial phyla species can be grown in the laboratory. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

No, the meanings are different; the suggestion is not accurate. Graham Beards (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

On second thoughts, the whole sentence is dated and unhelpful.Graham Beards (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

Some concerns - "and only about 27 percent of the bacterial phyla have species that can be grown in the laboratory" in the lead, and doesn't seem to be in the body

• The name "Schizomycetes" only seems to appear in the lead
• "Tuberculosis alone kills about 2 million people per year, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa" - also only in lead
• "S-layers have diverse but mostly poorly understood function" - source is from 1997, is this still poorly understood?

There's some more stuff like that, but I'm not seeing any major issues and this does not required FAR, so marking as satisfactory at URFA/2020. Hog Farm _Talk 02:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added a sentence or two on Schizomycytes to the Classification section. I have deleted the dated sentence about TB in the Lead and I have updated the section on S-layers.

There's still a little more work I want to do on the article, but I think the FA standard is safe.Graham Beards (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Disputed

Whether or not Eubacteria is a sister to Archaebacteria is litigious and thus not to be stated as a fact.

References

Sorry, you can't use a recent primary study to contest "archaea have a separate line of evolutionary descent from bacteria". I have deleted your addition. Please provide a fuller argument here. Graham Beards (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"They constitute a large domain of prokaryotic microorganisms."

First line, - They constitute a large domain of prokaryotic microorganisms.

The word "domain" is used in a confusing manner regarding the context of the article. Further confusion arises where it links to the page on biological tree of life level "domain"

Bacteria, is already, the domain.

The word "domain" in this sentence needs to be changed as it confuses whether "bacteria" is in fact, a "domain" , or if prokaryotes are the "domain"...

In otherwords, this sentence is currently saying - They (the domain that is bacteria) constitute a large domain of the domain. We are saying that bacteria domain, make up a large portion of the bacteria domain. UNLESS we remove the contextualisation of the biological connotations of the word "domain". But surely, within an article of this nature that is biology, we should hold contextualisation within a biological nature. The word domain, already has a definition in biology, and we shouldn't use it in place of other words, in a sort of pseudo-idiom style... To put simply, in the context of the sentence, and it's true intention, the word 'domain' is near synonymous with the word 'proportion' YET it links to the definition of "domain" in the domain system of taxonomy.

We cannot use the word "domain" uncontextualised within this nature of article, that is, we cannot use the word domain, as a synonym for "proportion". Within this article, domain should always, and only be used, with reference to the tree of life/three-domain system of taxonomy definition.

Thus I suggest the re-wording, domain should be changed to a more suitable word such as proportion in this particular sentence. 2407:7000:986C:1300:A082:FCA4:A46:E866 (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

There are prokaryotes other than bacteria. The terms are not synonyms. Graham Beards (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

GEEK TALK

Why "a thousand million"? Why don't we use regular language like a billion in regular articles? Do we say 188 one-eighth inches rather than a yard? This is wikipedia, not a sscientific journal. Common plain language is preferred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.241.34 (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point but for many years, and certainly during my lifetime, "billion" had two definitions: originally it meant a million million, but now it pretty much universally means a thousand million in most English-speaking communities. So, "a thousand million" is probably better here in my view. Graham Beards (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Humans and most other animals carry millions of bacteria.

"Humans and most other animals carry millions of bacteria" is such a profound understatement that it's shocking and mildly horrifying that this statement is okay for a Wikipedia article that may be a source of learning about bacteria and their ubiquitous presence for hundreds(?) of people. This absolutely should be rephrased as "Humans and most other animals carry trillions of bacteria." There is no scientific or reason-based argument against making this update. Disfucwhcrfgs (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

"Carry millions" is an English-language idiom in this context and it is not a mathematical statement.Graham Beards (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually "carry millions" is not an idiom and the statement is meant as one of fact, not one of an idiomatic or conversational nature. And why is this the answer instead of updating the article to more accurately reflect that actual statement of fact the sentence is attempting? Does changing the word to "trillions" detract from the accuracy of the article or make it more difficult to read? Is there a concern that using the word "trillions" (a scientifically verifiable fact when stating the general range of bacteria in humans and animals) is too "mathematical" compared to the less accurate (and merely idiomatic) "millions"? Surely we recognize the vast difference between "millions" and "trillions", even in an idiomatic sense? I thought the objective of Wikipedia is verifiable statements of fact that make people more knowledgeable and informed, not oversimplified, slightly misleading, and technically inaccurate idiomatic conversations. Is editing that word too difficult or not possible? This is kind of jarring. Disfucwhcrfgs (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It's an idiom that means way too many to count and most readers will understand this. As you like to be pedantic, humans carry hundreds of species of bacteria and 10 to 100 trillion bacterial cells, but the sentence in question says "and most other animals". Given that protozoa are animals, saying they carry trillions of bacteria is wrong: millions is a meaningful approximation of the bacterial flora of the animal kingdom. You will find most editors do not respond well to rants, so can you briefly say what changes you would like to see bearing in mind "most other animals" and that the sentence is in the Lead, which is a lay summary of the article. Graham Beards (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I think being pedantic is a positive in this case. How about rewriting the sentence so it's A) more accurate, B) more informative, and C) providing the general public more nuanced and meaningful content while also being more technically accurate? Something like:

"Humans and most animals carry billions and even trillions of bacteria."

To your point about protozoa, I think it's safe to say the intended meaning of the word "animals" in this specific sentence and paragraph isn't concerned with single-celled organisms, since the very next sentence points out that in humans and most animals, "millions billions and even trillions" of bacteria are present "in the gut" and "on the skin". Focusing on the potential range of organisms potentially classified as "animals" misses the point the sentence is making and the concept hopefully imparted to most people, which is the not just "big", but mind-numbingly vast amount of bacteria present in our bodies and those of organisms most people think of when they hear the word "animals."

"Humans and most other animals carry billions and even trillions of bacteria. Most are in the gut, and there are many on the skin."

To me, this seems like a simple, sensible, beneficial edit providing a small but net positive gain to the general knowledge shared by the article. Disfucwhcrfgs (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

You are forgetting mice and other small mammals and birds. You started off by saying "it's shocking and mildly horrifying that this statement is okay for a Wikipedia article that may be a source of learning about bacteria". I still can't see how it is at all shocking or horrifying, but it is reasonably accurate. I don't think your suggestion is an improvement.Graham Beards (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Graham Beards. "Millions" should be taken figuratively. I do not think any reader will be misled about the size of the population of bacteria on animals by using "millions". Donald Albury 18:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I can see why 90% of humanity hates you cretins once they know what you and this little backend operation at wikipedia are really like. You are completely and verifiably wrong, but determined to carve out a personal delusion of "authority" in your very tiny, very fleeting, very destructive little domain here. Moving on. Disfucwhcrfgs (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in the article. Graham Beards (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

First, I would like to point out that animals means Metazoa to a modern scientist, so it most definitely excludes any single cell organism. If it included protozoa it would be highly polyphyletic and modern scientist try to avoid polyphyletic taxon. Second, on the point at had, that of whether the use of number words in an encyclopedia should try to be accurate or not I would vote for replacing millions with trillions. It is not at all apparent to the casual reader what the actual number of bacteria in and on the human body should be, and by using a scientifically established number the reader gets a sense for the scale of the human micro-biome. Just my opinion, please play nice everyone.LarryBoy79 (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and would go further by saying "Like all animals, humans carry trillions of bacteria." I'm going to be BOLD and try this phrasing. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Accuracy

This text needs some copy editing, as several sentences are misleading as written. E.g. "Bacteria play a vital role in many stages of the nutrient cycle by recycling nutrients such as the fixation of nitrogen from the atmosphere". Nitrogen fixation is de novo nutrient acquisition, not nutrient recycling. I found several such . 2001:4645:B2FC:0:F04E:4210:8C3E:8247 (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for you feedback. See Nitrogen cycle. What were the other "inaccuracies in the first few paragraphs"? Graham Beards (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Schizophyta

I am quoting from the wikipedia article on cyanobacteria: Historically, bacteria were first classified as plants constituting the class Schizomycetes, which along with the Schizophyceae (blue-green algae/Cyanobacteria) formed the phylum Schizophyta ... With this in mind shouldn't the name Schizophyta redirect to Bacteria and not just Cyanobacteria? kupirijo (talk) 11:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Survival length

How long does bacteria last for? Cultures conservation (darkness, warmth, moisture) in maybe sugar and lemon remedies. Avyanna.Owam (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

This article talk page is solely for discussing improvements to the article. You might have better luck getting an answer at the Reference desk. - Donald Albury 19:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)