Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology

Missing info on coinfections including potential issues

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)

National Microbial Pathogen Data Resource

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)

List of Archaea genera

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

"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

Sigynarchaeales

Order "Sigynarchaeales" belongs to phylum 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 referenced sources. Please could anyone fix this? Thanks.e

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

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)

I deleted "Lokiarchaeaceae" that was WP:OR and added by Videsh Ramsahai. Jako96 (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

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)

Bacteria not validly published

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)

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#Request_for_comment

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)

Requested move at Talk:Wallaceina#Requested move 9 May 2024

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)

"Slime mould diseases" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Neomura

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)

Requested move at Talk:Syntrophales (bacteria)#Requested move 2 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Syntrophales (bacteria)#Requested move 2 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Zoonotic origins of COVID-19#Requested move 14 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zoonotic origins of COVID-19#Requested move 14 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 14:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The Prokaryote Taxonomy Contains a LOT OF Invalid Taxa.

Wikipedia's prokaryote taxonomy contains a lot of invalid taxa. Some examples: Superphylum Asgard needs to be the kingdom Promethearchaeati, unranked clade Terrabacteria needs to be the kingdom Bacillati. This needs to be fixed but Wikipedia favors the tradition, and this is very wrong. We need to fix that. Jako96 (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Two Pages for The Same Taxon

Promethearchaeati and Promethearchaeota [the page here uses Lokiarchaeota (the correct spelling of the name is "Candidatus Lokiarchaeota")] are synonyms (for example see Kingdom: Promethearchaeati). Why we have two pages for the same taxon? Jako96 (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Bacteria in ISS

Hi, everybody! I have added some info on recent studies related to Enterobacter bugandensis found in the International Space Station:

→ Talk:International Space Station § A (quite) new study on Enterobacter bugandensis

Please check if it's interesting and important enough to expand the Enterobacter article. Cheers! CiaPan (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Is Susan M. Butler-Wu notable?

I draftified this page. It was tagged for deletion as an abandoned (WP:G13) page in user space but the person looked possibly notable based on my look at Google Scholar. Can someone more familiar with academic notability and microbiology render an opinion?

Thanks, -- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

It would appear that the article would struggle to meet WP:NACADEMIC notability requirements — the only criterion I can think of is [...] has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline through citation metrics but those aren't available consistently. WeWake (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Prokaryote species article template?

Is there an article template or starter page for a prokaryote species? I wanna use my user sandbox and try my hand at starting a new article on Altarchaeum hamiconexum (Altiarchaeum hamiconexum). I'm just gonna try processing any source I come across. CheckNineEight (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Microscopy article titles

FYI - I've started a discussion over at Village Pump on Wikipedia's highly inconsistent set of article titles for different types of microscopy: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#What_to_title_microscope--microscopy_articles?

Feedback would definitely be welcome! Peter G Werner (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life § Can't display some taxa's authorities

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life § Can't display some taxa's authorities. Jako96 (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life § About the classification of the class "Candidatus Sericytochromatia"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life § About the classification of the class "Candidatus Sericytochromatia". Jako96 (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life § About using unclassified taxa of prokaryotes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life § About using unclassified taxa of prokaryotes. Jako96 (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Naegleriasis#Requested move 13 July 2025

An editor has requested that Naegleriasis be moved to Primary amoebic meningoencephalitis, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Asgard (Archaea) § Requested move 5 August 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asgard (Archaea) § Requested move 5 August 2025. Jako96 (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Balamuthia mandrillaris

The signs, symptoms and clinical treatment of the human disease caused by this organism are split amongst two Wikipedia pages - Balamuthia mandrillaris and Balamuthia infection - perhaps this should be resolved? Mfernflower (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Raphidomonadea § Requested move 31 August 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Raphidomonadea § Requested move 31 August 2025. Jako96 (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Synurid § Requested move 31 August 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Synurid § Requested move 31 August 2025. Jako96 (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

About Candidatus taxa

I think for Candidatus taxa, we should only use the word "Candidatus" on their name when first mentioning them on a page, except we should always use the word "Candidatus" in things like taxoboxes and phylogenies. Who's with me? For example, "Candidatus Lokiarchaeum" would just be "Lokiarchaeum" and "Candidatus Thorarchaeia" would just be "Thorarchaeia". Jako96 (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but I would go even further: the first mention in the lead should be something like "Lokiarchaeum is a candidate genus of archaea". All the mentions in taxoboxes should indeed be "Candidatus Lokiarchaeum", and all the page titles and other mentions outside taxoboxes and cladograms should be just "Lokiarchaeum". Without quote marks. — Snoteleks (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Such leads can be used, and I agree about everything else. Jako96 (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Wait, now I realised: The title SHOULD have the "Candidatus" word I think. Jako96 (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no reason to do that. See WP:TITLE — Snoteleks (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Actually, you're right with it per WP:COMMONNAME. Jako96 (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hear me out, what if we don't follow ICNP? For example, names like Asgardarchaeota are much more used, and also prokaryotic kingdoms' monophyly is not for sure (except monotypic ones). Jako96 (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Artoria2e5, @Videsh Ramsahai and @Petr Karel because they edit prokaryotic articles a lot. Jako96 (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Also pinging people participated in the Candidatus discussion: @Peter coxhead, @Jts1882, @Plantdrew and @CheckNineEight. Jako96 (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 This is not a good spot for discussing whether or not to rely on ICNP, but there's also no reason to treat ICNP as either the best or the worst possible source. It's just a source. On a case by case basis, we as wikieditors already distinguish between what sources better represent names of taxa (via WP:COMMONNAME, for example), so there is no need to discuss the ICNP as a whole. — Snoteleks (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm saying that we don't really need the Candidatus parameter. We should also stop using quotes. Let's just do what most sources do and use the most popular names, instead of valid ones under the ICNP. For example, we would use Asgardarchaeota instead of Promethearchaeota. Lokiarchaeia instead of Promethearchaeia, and the list goes on. Jako96 (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96, let's remember that, when talking about titles, that could refer to either of two things: the page name (URL/(wiki)link title), and the display title (top heading). We'd want Candidatus on the display title, I say; but we don't want to name our pages starting with "Candidatus", otherwise we'll end up with an alphabetized list with section C just filled up mostly with Candidatuses (which is actually already the case right now, since most people usually don't bother with the Sort this page by default as settings).

Other than that, I agree – and also with @Snoteleks here – that the word should be sparingly used. Also, don't forget that we can abbreviate it as "Ca." in the taxobox.

Hope it is possible to prefix the display title with Candidatus using the taxobox parameter. I really like this idea. It would also be very helpful when it takes advantage of the automatic taxobox feature; that way, a taxon can automatically set or unset Candidatus, when its child taxa are all candidatus or otherwise, respectively. CheckNineEight (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I can support all of that, I am glad we found agreement. I propose making the abbreviated Ca. a rule for prokaryotic taxoboxes, and recommend using the word sparingly in the article text. The issue is I don't know how we can display the Candidatus in the title just by using the automatic taxobox template. @Plantdrew perhaps has some idea? — Snoteleks (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a template editor; Jts1882 or Peter coxhead usually handle changes to the code of the taxobox system.

Are we settled on a precise format for what taxoboxes should display?

LPSN does:

"Candidatus Foo"

ICNP suggests:

Candidatus Foo

Do we want for this for ranks above genera?:

Ca. Foo

And for genera and species?:

Ca. Foo bar

I think it would be fairly simply to modify the taxobox system code to add support for a yes/no parameter |candidatus= in taxonomy templates, which could function like the existing |extinct= in adding character(s) to the beginning of a taxon name (with taxonomy templates/{{Automatic taxobox}} driving the display of taxa above species). Species would need {{Speciesbox}} modified to support a different instance of |candidatus= (but it also seems like it would be a fairly simple modification of what the speciesbox instance of |extinct= does).

If we want to have a consistent typographic distinction (e.g. italics) between the Ca. and candidatus names across all ranks I think it could get pretty complicated (ICNP/LPSN get around this by italicizing non-candidatus taxon names at all ranks and not italicizing candidatus names at all ranks). But I'm OK with not maintaining a typographic distinction between Ca. and the name.

Not including Candidatus in the page name/URL seems reasonable, but I'm not sure that the display title/top heading in that case can be adjusted with any of the methods listed at {{DISPLAYTITLE}} to include any additional characters to indicate Candidatus. Plantdrew (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, only the formatting of a page title can be altered, not the words. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, {{verbatim title}} exists and that adds quotation marks (which adds characters), and {{DISPLAYTITLE}} also has that ": _ Portal _ _ : _ Lorem ipsum dolor" example, which added underscores and an extra colon. Unless you meant to say that they can't add alphabetical characters specifically.

Other than that, yeah, the candidatus parameter should definitely work like the extinct parameter, actually. Yeah, I forgot about the taxonomy templates. CheckNineEight (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm torn. Writing for a general audience should use Candidatus sparingly in the article body when more accessible wording like this is possible. But we usually do give the recognized taxon name in the lead even when these follow conventions that will be unfamiliar to many readers e.g., Fragaria × ananassa for strawberry. (Although × should not be italicized—I will correct.) --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:38, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I think we should just not follow ICNP. This what most reliable sources do. Jako96 (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll defer to those with more expertise here. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:37, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Snoteleks @Plantdrew @Peter coxhead I think let's just forget all of this and stop necessarily following ICNP. See these Google Scholar links: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2025&q=asgardarchaeota&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5, https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2025&q=promethearchaeota&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 and https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2025&q=promethearchaeati&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5. Also see these papers: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08955-7, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-024-01904-6 and https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-024-01904-6. As an example, you can see that Asgardarchaeota is way more popular than Promethearchaeota. It's clear that researchers do not necessarily follow ICNP. After realising all of this, I don't think we need such a parameter anymore. Jako96 (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

You see, the 3rd paper I showed proposes a new Asgard archaeal class (Sleipnirarchaeota) under the phylum Asgardarchaeota, not Promethearchaeota. Jako96 (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Forgot to ping @CheckNineEight. Jako96 (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

It's the same with Lokiarchaeia vs. Promethearchaeia, Lokiarchaeia is WAY more popular. Jako96 (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

There is a lot more examples. For example, Altarchaeota is pro-correct under ICNP but Altiarchaeota is way more popular. Jako96 (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Two things:

1. Whether we use one taxon name or another is already determined by WP:COMMONNAME and other guidelines.
2. Whether we use Candidatus or not is an entirely different matter, and as you can see from this discussion alone, we have already reached consensus here. We are trying to implement Candidatus in an encyclopedia-friendly way. Telling us that we should not even have any mention of Candidatus is not only against prokaryote taxonomic conventions but also against the efforts that we are putting here.

— Snoteleks (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

No, I meant that we don't really need a Candidatus parameter only. How can you misunderstand me? Jako96 (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Asgardarchaeota is still technically a candidate name because when it was first proposed, it didn't contain any cultured taxa. Most researchers today don't care about ICNP and just say "Asgardarchaeota" instead of "Candidatus Asgardarchaeota". So, there is no reason to use quotes and use the word "Candidatus" in the taxobox. Jako96 (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, then yes, I misunderstood you, sorry. This whole thing is a bit beyond me, because in eukaryotic nomenclature there is no such thing as candidate taxa. But, to give you my opinion, I think only the more "correct" taxon should be used in the taxobox, meaning that in an article titled "Asgard archaea" or "Asgardarchaeota" the taxobox should say "Promethearchaeota". In a similar way, the article titled Centrohelida should say "Centroplasthelida" in the taxobox. Since the ICNP regulates prokaryotic nomenclature, we should probably try to follow it as closely as possible as long as it's backed by peer-reviewed research (I assume the name Promethearchaeota is formally published, right?). — Snoteleks (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Names like Asgardarchaeota are backed by more peer-reviewed research. Think about it: PhyloCode is also supposed to regulate phylogenetic nomenclature, right? But no one follows PhyloCode. The important thing is what reliable sources do, not necessarily taxonomic codes. And yes, Promethearchaeota is valid under the ICNP (the only valid name for all Asgard archaea except the monotypic kingdom Promethearchaeati which contains Promethearchaeota). Jako96 (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Well I would not equate PhyloCode to ICNP, I would say ICNP is more equivalent to ICZN and ICNafp. They have reliable sources, usually in the IJSEM journal. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, that was just an example. So, what do you think? Also, I think that ICNP is definitely not that equivalent to ICZN and ICN. Jako96 (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

This is the best example, see https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2025&q=methanobacteriati&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 and https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2025&q=kingdom+euryarchaeota&oq=kingdom+euryarc. The name Euryarchaeota is clearly more popular than Methanobacterati although I'm not sure if we should use this taxon if we are not gonna follow ICNP, because it's monophyly is uncertain. ICNP followers use this taxon because of "taxonomic usability" they say. Jako96 (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Jako96, you are pretty focused on higher level Candidatus taxa. Candidatus Bartonella eldjazairii does not appear without Candidatus (it doesn't really commonly appear on the internet with Candidatus either; I wouldn't object to this particular article being deleted as non-notable, but that is a separate issue.) Wikipedia has fewer articles on Candidatus species than I had thought, although it looks like several former Candidatus species have been validated since the Wikipedia articles were written. I don't think you can dismiss the potential utility of a |candidatus= outright, when you are apparently only thinking about very high level taxa, and I don't think non ICNP names should be used in taxoboxes for higher Candidatus taxa (but don't necessarily object to using names such as Euryarcheota for article titles). Plantdrew (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

^ This is the way I think as well. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Not important. Will we seriously forget about thousands of articles? Jako96 (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

That would literally be not caring about the scientific consensus. Jako96 (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@Myceteae, apparently you are not that much into prokaryotes, but think about it, if a large majority of sources were NOT following ICNP, should we also not follow or follow ICNP? Wikipedia should do what most peer-reviewed sources do, right? Also, check the links I provided above this message. Jako96 (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I love prokaryotes! But I'm out of by depth here. I know enough to just follow the discussion but don't have anything to add at this time. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:47, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Nobody's saying we should forget non-ICNP-accepted names, we're just saying we should use the ICNP names for the taxobox. The rest of the articles should have the common names. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

No, we should use non-ICNP names in the taxobox. Why would we even use 2 names for one taxon? Jako96 (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 Your responses from yesterday and today are confusing me. Everyone else here has already agreed somewhat in the Candidatus matter, and what you're doing right now is mulling the conversation by changing the topic to anti-ICNP. Either I really am not interpreting you correctly at all, or you are indeed trying to shift the conversation into discussing the validity of ICNP names. If it's the second, I ask you to make a new topic about it instead of discussing it here. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

You're kinda right. Let's just go ahead and add this Candidatus feature. Will discuss my idea later, somewhere else. Jako96 (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll just say one last thing: According to ICNP, the pro-correct name for the Thorarchaeota/Thorarchaeia group is phylum Thorarchaeota, while the actual scientific consensus is to use the class Thorarchaeia. And yes, a lot of ICNP following papers used this name but this pro-validity thingy just added to the ICNP. Even if we were adding that parameter, it's best we should not necessarily follow ICNP. Jako96 (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

We're not foregoing the |candidatus= parameter entirely, right? Having "candidatus" somewhere is pretty helpful for readers to quickly tell that the species is only known about from metagenomics, and for researchers to quickly tell that it isn't cultured yet already. For higher taxonomic ranks, I thought it should just lose "candidatus" as soon as one member within its phylogeny gets cultured (un-candidatus).

As for the ICNP names, I suppose we treat them the same way as Ca. or † and only use them on certain areas like the taxobox (and perhaps the cladogram as well, since those are already commonly showing both common and valid names each node). That means the page name (URL/article link name) should be the common name as well; I don't know if we'd want the display title to be the ICNP name (if that's possible), but it shouldn't (in my opinion). CheckNineEight (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with all of this. — Snoteleks (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Should this article be moved (or renamed) for consistency

Dissimilatory iron reducing bacteria ends with bacteria specifically, but there's 2 other similar articles that end with microorganisms instead and also hyphenate "reducing", namely: Dissimilatory metal-reducing microorganisms, and Sulfate-reducing microorganism. There's other similar articles that end specifically with "bacteria", but only one of them hyphenates, namely: Sulfur-reducing bacteria.

I feel like such articles shouldn't imply just bacteria specifically, but I don't know much about these articles and possibly unaware of the existence of archaea- and eukaryote-specific counterparts, so I don't really know if there was a good reason for these articles to be separately about bacteria specifically (if that makes sense). CheckNineEight (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Amorphea § Podiata ref

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Amorphea § Podiata ref. Jako96 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)