Template talk:Bacteria classification

Initial comment

what about chlamydia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.162.8.226 (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is widely believed that LUCA is between Archaea and Bacteria. "Eubacteria" is monophyly.

However, Thomas Cavalier-Smith is insisted on (LUCA is in Eobacteria). "Eubacteria" is paraphyly.

The classification system of Thomas Cavalier-Smith is based on this theory. Moreover, if the classification system of Thomas Cavalier-Smith is used, it is necessary to include Archaea in Bacteria. I think that it is safer to use Bergey's Manual now. --Krclathrate (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that most of the terms and relationships in this template are affirmed by researchers other than Cavalier-Smith. Please be more specific in your objection. --Arcadian (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot object in English more than this.

>most of the terms and relationships in this template are affirmed by researchers other than Cavalier-Smith.

I believe this. Good night. (-_-)゜゜zzZ --Krclathrate (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 05:13, 29 April 2009 (JST)[reply]

Terrabacteria

After reading the Terrabacteria article, it seems that it doesn't want to agree with where it is on this template. There's no article Glidobacteria to link the place in the tree to - suggestions for fixing?

I don't know the (externally-sourced) facts here, I'm just tidying Wikipedia. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Batcerial phyla

As there are 29 accepted phyla in Bacteria and the whole thing gets confusing, the article bacterial phyla was made. Can it be fitted in here? (For obvious reasons, it does not follow Cavalier-Smith, but Woese and the online taxonomic outline (=Bergey's but updated), LPSN and others) --Squidonius (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bug in one of the Bacteria navs templates

The included template "Bacteria navs" is bugged. A somewhat fix is to replace the template with this code: code begin> Medicine:Bacterial infection · Bacteria (Bacteria classification) · Gram-positive firmicutes diseases/Gram-positive actinobacteria diseases(Tuberculosis)/Gram-negative proteobacterial diseases(Cholera)/Gram-negative non-proteobacterial bacterial diseases · drug(Protein synthesis inhibitor antibiotics, Cell wall disruptive antibiotics, Nucleic acid inhibitors, Antimycobacterials, Vaccines) 85.178.82.244 15:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the nature of this bug? How does it show, and on which pages? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Call to create a new template

The Bacteria classification template is woefully outdated using the "Bergey's Manual" system on two counts. Firstly, it does not allow for the addition of the multitude of recently discovered Bacteria phyla to be placed in most of the established categories. Secondly, most of the characteristics to which the higher classification of the Bergey's system is based on are either plesiomorphic or very phenotypically plastic, which does not allow for firm categorising, eg. Gram +ve/-ve staining and presence/absence and number of outer membranes. So it is my hope to elicit someone to overhaul this template to be more stable and phylogenetically relevant with the ability to be open enough to accommodate new phyla that have been discovered. One such system or starting point might be the use of the clades outlined by Battistuzzi et al. 2004 and Battistuzzi & Hedges 2009 using the phylogeny of the Genome Taxonomy Database (GTDB release 05-RS95). Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The overhauled template is much worse, almost useless

Since Videsh's cladistic overhaul, Template:Bacteria classification is now useless to the typical reader.

More than half its entries are esoteric redlinks.
The most relevant taxa have been condensed or eliminated:

Actinobacteria, which used to have its own row listing a dozen recognizable taxa, is now a single esoteric entry "Actinomycetota".
Same with Firmicutes.
Proteobacteria's orders are now haphazardly jumbled together, jettisoning the affordance of its widely recognized and expected subtaxa (alpha-zeta).

There is no utility in a template that displays disputed, bleeding edge cladistics at the expense of overwhelmingly more familiar and expected points of reference. The proper place for a bleeding-edge phylogenetic tree that truncates highly relevant taxa like Actinobacteria and Firmicutes to single leaves is Bacteria#Classification and identification or Bacterial taxonomy (which ironically have no phylogenies).

@Videsh Ramsahai: Please restore some of the earlier formatting, which expanded and organized relevant, well-known phyla like Actinobacteria, Firmicutes, and Proteobacteria, or revert your changes altogether. —wing gundam 18:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]