Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology

See "Missing info on "hybrid viral particles" and other (potential) issues from coinfections". This doesn't only relate to the Coinfection article. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

National Microbial Pathogen Data Resource looks like it could be an exceptionally useful article to Wikipedia editors (e.g., to help figure out whether a source is reliable). If anyone knows something about this subject, the article could use some attention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The List provided here does neither follow NCBI Taxonomy nor LPSN. It looks very like GTDB instead:

• https://gtdb.ecogenomic.org/tree

E. g. there is a phylum Asgardarchaeota with class Lokiarchaeia comprising Lokiarchaeales and Helarchaeales, but not a phylum Lokiarchaeota. Besides of the fact that the list is worthless due to invalid reference, this rises further problems as follows:

"Lokiarchaeaceae " could not be veryfied anywehere, even not in GTDB. There is no reference provided for "Lokiarchaeaceae" Vanwonterghem et al. 2016. Is Lokiarchaeaceae eqal to GTDB-family MK-D1? For a discussion of this and the question if "Lokiarchaeaceae" Vanwonterghem et al. 2016 might be equal to GTDB family MK-D1 see Talk:Lokiarchaeota#2 species cultivated now.

A Google lookup returned just hits from russian server in chinese that wanted me to input my creditcard dates. Please find a serious source for

"Lokiarchaeaceae" Vanwonterghem et al. 2016

Order "Sigynarchaeales" belongs to pyhlum Sigynarchaeaota (strain SQRJ_234) according to LPSN. This clade is not known to NCBI taxonomy. There is no relation to Lokiarchaota/Lokiarchaeia according to the rfrerenced soureces. Please could anyone fix this? Thanks.

--Ernsts (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Might be a good idea to ping Videsh Ramsahai and throw on some magic template to archive this thing to Talk:List of Archaea genera.

• The closest I got for Vanwonterghem was a bunch of "Verstraetearchaeota". That's weird.
• "Sigynarchaeaota" is shown as sister to Lokiarchaeota in doi:10.1007/s11427-021-1969-6, one of the sources currently provided. I think someone decided that the GTDB Loki is "Lokiarchaeales", so the sister must also become an order? The assemblies are a little too new for GTDB release 214.

Artoria2e5 🌉 15:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia has many articles on bacteria that are not validly published. There is a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabonia for 6 of them. I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Bacteria not validly published for a broader discussion about which, if any, bacteria not validly published should have articles. Plantdrew (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. Editors are invited to contribute. TarnishedPath^talk 01:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wallaceina#Requested move 9 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect Slime mould diseases has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 28 § Slime mould diseases until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It would be useful to have more comments at Talk:Neomura#Neomura the taxon vs neomuran hypothesis as Grey Clownfish and I have been unable to establish consensus. They made it a redirect to Archaea; I think it should remain as an article as there is not complete consensus as to its status, particularly in view of a 2020 paper co-authored by Cavalier-Smith (in refs). Peter coxhead (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply