Jump to content

Talk:Fastidious organism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Hi

I added the definition of fastidious from answers.com which defined it as "Having complicated nutritional requirements." Please do not remove it as Blood agar contains this word which needs a definition. Flowright138 (talk) (contributions) 09:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the notability issue; however, I think we can expand more on it by including some examples of fastidious organisms and examples of media in which those fastidious organisms can grow on. But please allow me time to add content over time. Flowright138 (talk) (contributions) 09:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

[edit]

Should the title of this article be "fastidiousness" or "fastidious microbes?" It seems unusual to have an encyclopedia article titled with an adjective. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not even "fastidious (microbe)" works because its not actually a noun. As an adjective, I agree it is unusual. I can't really see how this could ever get to Featured Article status (which is the end goal for all articles). I'd say "Fastidious" better belongs in Wikidictionary or the like. Jesse V. (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of articles could never be brought to FA status, but that in itself doesn't make them illegitimate. That said, I agree that the definition of "fastidious" in biology belongs at wikt:fastidious. I suggest that information about media for growing fastidious microbes belongs at Growth medium#Enriched media, and information about fastidious microbes themselves belongs in a new section at Microbial ecology. Better to present this information within broader articles that provide context, I think. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 06:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ teadrinker. You did raise a point, I just noticed that having an adjective is unusual. @jessemv. Indeed, my original intention was to define the word. Since it was a word that does not come up in everyday language, I thought that it was necessary to make its own wikipedia page for it. I suppose that is not a valid reason to start a new page so, which is why I thought throwing in more content would hopefully be enough. But, I guess not all English words has its own wikipedia page. So, I am happy to have this article remove again. But in contrast, would it be possible to link the word fastidious to the wikidictionary page, as a click able link? Or is that not allowed due to the wikipedia hyperlinking standard? Flowright138 (talk) (contributions) 11:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC) PS: better leave this talk page if we are to format the content of this article for the next person that will probably start this up again. Flowright138 (talk) (contributions) 11:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is some merit to this article as this term does seem to be fairly commonly used (see for example PubMed and Google). However this article should be renamed. My suggestion is "fastidious organism". Boghog (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to change the name to "Fastidious organisms". So how do I do that? Flowright138 (talk) (contributions) 02:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is consensus to Move this article to "Fastidious organisms" I would be happy to do that. I have never moved an article before so if noone has any objections I can take care of that. Are we all agreed to move to "Fastidious organisms"? Just want to make sure, since we can't undo the move apparently. :D Jesse V. (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I was WP:BOLD and went ahead and renamed this article. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Jesse V. (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fastidious organism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]