Talk:Cyanobacteria

Recent changes
Few of comments/suggestions on recent change:
 * Great! It's nice to see this article mature.
 * What does "gliding" mean in "They lack flagella but may move about by gliding." How do they glide, and is this under their own power?  (I admit: I almost asked if this was "intentional", but then I remembered they're bacteria :-)
 * They glide actively by convulsions, supporting themselves against some substrate. Andres 09:28, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. 6803 has pili for motility. This form of motility has been shown to be regulated by the cAMP receptor protein. Hedger 11:30, 14 2007
 * The mechanism for motility for many cyanobacterial species has not yet been fully clarified. For example, see Read et al (2007), J. Bacteriol., 189 7361-7366.  User:Grumpy Fisherman16.00 12 Feb 2010  —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC).


 * "...the nitrogen-fixing protein complex may be packaged into specialized cells called heterocysts." Aren't bacteria single-celled?  Does specialized "cells" mean something like organelles?  This all seems to contradict my limited knowledge of biology.
 * Several cells may live together, forming filaments (or colonies). Andres 09:28, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zashaw 22:03 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)
 * If someone knows more (or even a bit) about the lichen story, I'd encourage you to add the info to the endosymbiont article, which currently is heavily slanted to endosymbionts in insects (I wrote it; it's all I know about endosymbionts)
 * "This organization closely resembles that of chloroplasts, which are believed to be derived from endosymbiotic cyanobacteria. In particular the pigments of most cyanobacteria are very similar to those of red algae." I don't see how the second sentence follows from the first -- how does the pigment of cyanobacteria relate to chloroplasts?


 * I would consider that this section is well-written but requires more sources, as well as more images could improve this section. Ravsid (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Ravsid

billion
"...cyanobacteria have been found from around 3800 million years ago, making cyanobacteria some..." - is this 3800 million years number correct? Can't we just put 3.8 billion years?

Fcrick 19:03, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * We're trying to avoid the controversy over the word "billion". Some people insist that 3.8 billion is 3,800,000 million. See Talk:Billion --70.189.75.148 03:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Evidence of cyanobacterial microfossil controversy
See any of the following recent publications.


 * Questioning the oldest signs of life Simpson S SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 288 (4): 70-77 APR 2003
 * Questioning the evidence for Earth's oldest fossils Brasier MD, Green OR, Jephcoat AP, et al. NATURE 416 (6876): 76-81 MAR 7 2002
 * Necessary, but not sufficient: Raman identification of disordered carbon as a signature of ancient life Pasteris JD, Wopenka B ASTROBIOLOGY 3 (4): 727-738 WIN 2003
 * Earth's oldest (similar to 3.5 Ga) fossils and the 'Early Eden hypothesis': Questioning the evidence Brasier M, Green O, Lindsay J, Steele A ORIGINS OF LIFE AND EVOLUTION OF THE BIOSPHERE 34 (1-2): 257-269 FEB 2004
 * Archean microfossils: a reappraisal of early life on Earth Altermann W, Kazmierczak J RESEARCH IN MICROBIOLOGY 154 (9): 611-617 NOV 2003
 * Self-assembled silica-carbonate structures and detection of ancient microfossils Garcia-Ruiz JM, Hyde ST, Carnerup AM, Christy AG, Van Kranendonk MJ, Welham NJ SCIENCE 302 (5648): 1194-1197 NOV 14 2003
 * Recognizing and interpreting the fossils of early eukaryotes Javaux EJ, Knoll AH, Walter M ORIGINS OF LIFE AND EVOLUTION OF THE BIOSPHERE 33 (1): 75-94 FEB 2003
 * Morphology: An ambiguous indicator of biogenicity Ruiz JMG, Canerup A, Christy AG, Welham NJ, Hyde ST ASTROBIOLOGY 2 (3): 353-369 FAL 2002
 * Laser-Raman spectroscopy (Communication arising): Images of the Earth's earliest fossils? Pasteris JD, Wopenka B NATURE 420 (6915): 476-477 DEC 5 2002
 * Laser-Raman spectroscopy (Communication arising): Images of the Earth's earliest fossils? Reply Schopf JW, Kudryavtsev AB, Agresti DG, Wdowiak TJ, Czaja AD NATURE 420 (6915): 477-477 DEC 5 2002
 * Atomic force microscopy of Precambrian microscopic fossils Kempe A, Schopf JW, Altermann W, Kudryavtsev AB, Heckl WM PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 99 (14): 9117-9120 JUL 9 2002
 * Microfossils: Squaring up over ancient life Dalton R NATURE 417 (6891): 782-784 JUN 20 2002 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.252.95 (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2004 (UTC)


 * sorry, but there's no way to confirm 5 year old journal entries, I know for a fact my campus database doesn't even retain journals that old, if you're still here, you'll have to provide URLs for these, I should be able to access these, otherwise the claim is essentially unsourced--172.150.247.132 23:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * the first article seems to exist, but from the abstract it seems that 128.95.252.95 made claims not supported by the article, I can't be sure because most of these articles are too old and are no longer available on their respective online journal databases--172.150.247.132 00:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Orders
At the moment, the classification of cyanobacteria is confused. The standard morphology based orders could be used if we really wanted, but they're obsolete and so I don't think they add anything to the article. It looks like at the moment, cyanobacteria are divided into five sections, simply referred to as I-V. I think we should hold off on adding subdivisions until a better system emerges. Josh 18:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * ok - maybe it could be useful to add some note in the taxobox to prevent future additions. Also the subdivision box is useful to navigate towards more specific articles... Azhyd 18:12, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * Some further checking shows that aside from the prochlorophytes, the orders you added are the same as the sections, but with standard Linnaean names given. However, it looks like the sections aren't supported by phylogeny either, with the two exceptions of Nostocales and Stigonematales.  Anyways, since I managed to confuse even myself with this, I'll add some discussion of this to the article. Josh — Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 5 September 2004 (UTC)


 * OK no orders then. The most recent treatment of the Cyanobacteria I can find is here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onco p53 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 6 February 2005 (UTC)


 * Here further from the "International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes", International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (Bacteriological Code) in     International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology:
 * International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes
 * "Cyanobacteria continue to be covered by both the Botanical Code and Prokaryotic Code. An effort to reconcile the status of this group of bacteria has been underway for several decades. Although some progress has been made, a final decision has not yet been reached between the ICN and ICSP. Oren, A. 2004. A proposal for further integration of the cyanobacteria under the Bacteriological Code. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 54:1895–1902. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.03008-0. "
 * —DIV (115.64.145.215 (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC))

Bacteria
I think this should be changed to Cyanoprokaryote(s). Much modern up-to-date classification recognizes that Cyanoprokaryotes show significant differences from either Bacteria or Archae and should rightly belong in their own classification within prokaryotes.--ZayZayEM 12:13, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Cyanobacteria is still the much more common term. If there turn out to be many different groups of prokaryotes, I imagine we will go back to using bacteria and prokaryotes as synonyms rather than further restricting the group.  At least this is done by Cavalier-Smith, who has argued for a while that the eubacteria comprise several different groups.  It would be very interesting to see a reference on this, though, because it would presumably have more information for us about the relationships between the different groups. Josh — Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 24 October 2004 (UTC)

Photosynthetic bacteria - proposal
Perhaps someone who knows the topic should write the article photosynthetic bacteria. Also, can someone check what is the relationship between Cyanobacteria and T.aquaticus and describe it more specifically in the article Geyser? Thanks. --Eleassar777 14:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Anything with a chloroplast is photosynthetic. Maybe that will do for now. Brewhaha@edmc.net 06:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Satellite image
I added the NASA image, showing a bloom in the Baltic, but I cannot determine if it consists mainly of other phytoplankton than cyanobacteria (the latter are very common, and very annoying, every summer). Experts, please offer opinions, thanks. --Janke | Talk 20:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

No chlorophyll b in Cyanobacteria
I believe there is no chlorophyll b in Cyanobacteria. They do have chlorophyll a,d; carotenoids and phycobiliproteins. See http://www.plantphys.net/article.php?ch=t&id=67 for example. Daniel G. mustelus@gmx.de — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.240.74 (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That page excludes the prochlorophytes, which do have chlorophyll b, from the cyanobacteria. This is no longer standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Grosse (talk • contribs) 04:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Does this sentence make any sense?
"As soon they evolved, they became the dominant metabolism for producing fixed carbon in the form of sugars from carbon dioxide."

It's in the first paragraph. I can't make sense of it. JohnJohn 02:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the word "metabolism" should perhaps read "mechanism"? I'll leave it to a proper user to decide though, as I'm not certain. --86.133.146.194 19:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Fred

cyanobacteria "controversy"
seems to have been invented by an anon ip, 2 years ago, seems to have been reverted, and then when no one was looking re-added then forgotten, it seems to have been there ever since--172.150.247.132 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My girlfriend is doing a PhD on this and I'll get a reference from her. There are claims of biomarkers for oxyphotosynthesis from ~3.5 billion years, biomarkers for eukarykotes (and thus oxygen) from ~2.5 billion years, and then younger fossil evidence for cyanobacteria-like organisms.  None of this should be identified with the cyanobacteria, which are a modern taxon, though they are presumably related. -- Danny Yee 01:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible energy source
I was wondering if anyone knows how to force cyanobacteria to produce Hydrogen. I was told all you have to do is sulfur starve them and the cyanobacteria stops producing oxygen and begins to produce hydrogen. If anyone has any ideas as to how this could be done please let me know. Z Swankie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.232.119.215 (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Many cyanobacteria have hydrogenase activity (produce or use H2). In species that have the capacity to fix free nitrogen (and liberate H2 as a by-product of nitogen fixation), an enzyme named "uptake hydrogenase" is present that uses H2 for producing reduing equivalents. In many other species another enzyme, bidirectional hydrogenase, is present. Its function is still not well understood. Presumably in stress conditions (such as sulfur starvation) it may act as a valve for low-potential electrons and maintain photosynthetic electron trasport. Little is known about this. -- Basa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basa (talk • contribs) 22:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the sulfur starve method of hydrogen production was discovered with Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, a green algae rather than a cyano, that said it would still work with them. However it is a somewhat ineffective method as it causes the organism to degrade protein, a very metabolically expensive method. Most hydrogenase enzymes are also oxygen sensitive and so producing hydrogen does not happen at the same time as oxygenic photosynthesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moojo315 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

spirulina
the Spirulina page seems to have taken on a life of its own, would anyone be interested in helping me get a little factual accuracy in there?--Niro5 19:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Filament=colony?!
I am not sure the term colony applies to filamentous cyanobacteria. In a colony, a term quite loosely defined, the cells are stuck together due to the extracellular polysacharides, whereas in filamentous cyanobacteria the cells are uniseriatly arranged and comunicate through their periplasm, i.e. have a common outer membrane. Basa 16:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Nutritional Information
I see a few websites selling Aphanizomenon flos-aquae (aka Klamath Lake Algae) as a nutritional supplement similar to Spirulina. Does anyone have any nutritional information they can post in the article?24.83.178.11 09:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)KnowledgeSeeker

Added Cyanophyta
Wondered why it was excluded. Fad (ix) 21:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't know if the wording is really correct to say right on, in the lead that it is a Phyllum of bacteria, when there is still a controversy on there. Fad (ix) 21:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

pigments?
do cyanobacteria have chlorophyll c and/or d? if not where do they come from in plastides of brown and red algae respectively? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.198.164.98 (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Prochlorophyte redirect
Prochlorophyte redirects here, yet there is little mention of them in the article. I believe the difference is the type of chlorophyll each possesses, but am not certain enough to add it. Could someone please clarify it in the article. Cheers, Jack 22:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Prochlorophyte is a deprecated term. It refers to cyanobacteria containing Chhlorophyll b and previously thought to be different from cyanos.  Many work have established that prochlorophytes belong to cyanobacteria and that the different "prochlorophyte" are not related to each other phylogenetically and therefore should not be grouped together. Until there is a specific article on prochlorophyte explaining the history of the term and then that it should be no longer used, the redirection is probably the safer --Daniel Vaulot 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Cyanide
"...the bacteria do not use or produce cyanide whose chemical prefix is cyano-."

Is this addendum really necessary? I doubt that this is a common assumption and it seems a little ridiculous in the intro. Black Platypus (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It does seem a little ridiculous, and the rest of the paragraph isn't much better. I'm considering changing the intro to this:
 * "Cyanobacteria, also known as Cyanophyta or blue-green algae, is a phylum of bacteria that obtain their energy through photosynthesis. The name "cyanobacteria" comes from the color of the bacteria (Greek: κυανός (kyanós) = blue). They are a significant component of the marine nitrogen cycle and an important primary producer in many areas of the ocean, but are also found on land.
 * "Stromatolites, putative fossilized cyanobacteria, have been found from 3.8 billion years ago. The ability of cyanobacteria to perform oxygenic photosynthesis is thought to have converted the early reducing atmosphere into an oxidizing one (the Oxygen Catastrophe), which dramatically changed the life forms on Earth and provoked an explosion of biodiversity. They are also considerad the ancestors of chloroplasts in plants and algae."
 * Narayanese 16:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I believe there may be a need to directly address the cyanide issue, ridiculous as it may seem. I just picked up "The Poisoner's Handbook: Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York" by Deborah Blum, and in it the author claims cyanobacteria are a good example of cyanide being used in nature (which of course they aren't). Considering the author is a Pulitzer-prize winning professor of science journalism and this is a book as recent as 2010, she's probably not the only one to get that wrong in a published work, and less skeptical readers may be tempted to take such claims at face value. I feel like a single sentence explaining the common Greek root and dispelling the misconception of cyanide in the bacteria would be helpful. Shanesmith4 (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Chlorophyll-alpha
"... lack phycobilisomes and have chlorophyll b instead (Prochloron, Prochlorococcus, Prochlorothrix)..."

Am I correct to lead that only those have chlorophyll beta? As in they are red and the others, as chlorophyll alpha would be blue and green? 69.158.65.153 (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Cyanobacteria are big on either end of the motile chain may be tapered. ??
The meaning here is very unclear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria#Forms —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.118.47 (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That was a hoax edit, I'm sorry I didn't catch it earlier. Only those parts that stick out and are used for movement are tapered as far as can tell. Narayanese (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Blue-green bacteria
Should someone comment on the page that they used to be called blue-green bacteria, but it changed... and why it changed? -- Chris Brack :P 01:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greeniweeni (talk • contribs)

Cyanobacterial evolution from comparative genomics
This section reads like it's been copied verbatim from a scientific article or book. Oh, wait, it was. It makes little sense to write 'here we present...' when in fact here we do not present. Does anybody have any good leads for rewriting this section about the evolutionary history of cyanobacteriae - preferably to include the origin of photosynthesis?

(Let me just dump some links here for future study:, ) Gralgrathor (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

describe the cyanobacteria present-day environment
describe the cyanobacteria present-day environment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.118.8 (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The present-day environment of cyanobacteria is Earth. They are a high-level group, so asking for information more specific than that would be like asking for the environment of "animals". --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

the blue green algaes helps in nitrogen fixation are nostoc and anabena while blue green bacterias helps in nitrogen fixation are rhizobium, azatobacter and clostridium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.51.142 (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope. Many of those are not blue green. Narayanese (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Identification and HABs
Would someone please add some non-microscopic photographs that would help people identify the primary groups of algae? Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) are a serious health hazard but these only, as far as I understand, refer to blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria ) not for instance to green algae. Helping people distinguish between the principal forms would be a helpful service for the article to provide in my opinion. LookingGlass (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * (Replied at Talk:Green algae, where this comment was also posted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC))

Definitely not an "Animal"
I have encountered a number of individuals who have taken the fact that BGA is bacteria to mean that it is an "Animal" - perhaps some clarification of the reclassification should be made that just because it is no longer in the "Plant" regnum doesn't mean it has become an "Animal."

As far as I am aware, nothing classified as an "animal" respirates Carbon Dioxide for energy and emits Oxygen. Redwood Elf (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

History of BGA name falling out of use
I'd be very interested in a brief overview of the origins of the term "cyanobacteria" to substitute "blue-green algae" and how long it took to displace the misnomer (if it has indeed been displaced fully yet). Certainly when I was in high school biology in the aughties the textbook carried both terms, though I can't remember if it was the textbook's preference or the teacher's to use BGA by default. In grad lab this decade we usually said BGA, but that may be because the PIs were old and we were physicists. Anyway, I found a lot of cognitive dissonance in having to remind myself that BGA are prokaryotes every time we brought up their biology, so I'm just surprised "cyanobacteria" didn't take root as soon as it was introduced. Anyone with more insight in biology's academia want to help out with this? SamuelRiv (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * SamuelRiv, "origins of the term "cyanobacteria" to substitute "blue-green algae"? it's addressed in the article.
 * "how long it took to displace the misnomer?" it's not out of use at all. institutions like state DNR's perpetuate it, if you search just a bit.--Wuerzele (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't see where in the article it mentions when the term "cyanobacteria" was first used (or, for that matter, other terms like "cyanophyta" as mentioned in the sidebar) -- could you point it out? As for displacement, while BGA certainly is still used in plenty of publications (especially outside academia), whenever guidelines or policies are put in place they invariably prefer or mandate "cyanobacteria." SamuelRiv (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Authority is labelled as "Stanier, 1973" so that gives a clue of the proposer of this name. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

inadequate lede
i flagged the lede today, because it seems stuck on details of physiology, but there's so much more. I'm no expert on this, just drove by today and want to encourage a rewrite for this 'level 4 vital article'.--Wuerzele (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

DNA samples of Cyanobacteria?
Would Wikipedia ever collect DNA samples of simple organisms like the Cyanobacteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfarrow (talk • contribs) 07:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia collects digital material and not samples. A DNA sequence would be way too excessive for an article. But consider Wikisource or Wikiversity. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Cyanobacterial starch
In the article, there is no information on the substance which Cyanobacteria produce as their energy store. Some literature talks about cyanobacterial starch. What is it? What is the difference between cyanobacterial starch, floridean starch, common starch and glycogen? 178.235.146.101 (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

See Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algal_bloom
See also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication

Perhaps they could be added at end of article. ee1518 (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Why does this article not provide examples of such blooms on major lakes?
From the Great Lakes article. (I added this content today)

"Blue-green algae, or Cyanobacteria blooms, have been problematic on Lake Erie since 2011. "Not enough is being done to stop fertilizer and phosphorus from getting into the lake and causing blooms," said Michael McKay, executive director of the Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research (GLIER) at the University of Windsor. The largest Lake Erie bloom to date occurred in 2015, exceeding the severity index at 10.5 and in 2011 at a 10. In early August 2019, satellite images depicted a bloom stretching up to 1,300 square kilometres on Lake Erie, with the epicentre near Toledo, Ohio. A large bloom does not necessarily mean the cyanobacteria ... will produce toxins", said Michael McKay of the University of Windsor. Water quality testing was underway in August 2019. "

Peter K Burian (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks that looks like a good edit over there. Note that here we don't really provide any examples, unless you count the one sample image.  But the concept of blooms is mentioned, with blooms wikilinked to algal blooms and in response to your post I also added a Further template also pointing at algal blooms. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

What eats it?
Imagine Reason (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

plastids
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01612 states 'The phylum Cyanobacteria includes free-living bacteria and plastids,' https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanolh.html: In fact the chloroplast in plants is a symbiotic cyanobacterium, taken up... There were some reverts because plastids "are not independent organisms" anymore. Jmv2009 (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

What regions of Earth is this bacteria most prevalent in?
RagR9 (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It's found practically everywhere. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Gram negative
According to Gram-negative bacteria Cyanobacteria are gram-negative, although I cannot find support for this claim from citations given or other citations, but in conformity, I will change the heading of this article to indicate that the bacterium is gram-negative. -- Ben Best:Talk 15:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * [10.1016/j.plantsci.2007.12.004 This source] describes them as gram-negative, though I wonder how meaningful the term is when applied to highly pigmented bacteria. I'll add the cite. Can you look at the age range? I suspect 2100 Ma is too young, though I understand there is controversy about this. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I added the URL for the full copy, which settles the matter. Thank you for looking into this and providing the citation.--Ben Best:Talk 21:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Only B-class for this article?
I am very impressed by this article, it looks amazing. Great work by all the contributors! I am no wikipedia expert or microbiologist myself, but comparing this with some of the other microbiology articles.. shouldn't this be a GA at minimum? 143.176.152.58 (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * GA requires a formal review process. You can initiate it, but it's probably best done by someone who has made serious contributions to the article. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Chemical Ecology
— Assignment last updated by 許翠庭 (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is that this is too soon and isn’t the common name. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Cyanobacteria → cyanobacteriota – According to this, this is the new name of this phylum, having been changed only a few months ago. 176.159.12.72 (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not my speciality, but the publication in question is a proposal for reclassification, and has been cited three times so far. I suspect this is premature. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point, I didn't see it. The French article has been renamed, that's why I proposed this page move. 193.54.167.164 (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems to be official now, though very recent. 193.54.167.164 (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that's any more "official" for our purposes than the previous publication - it's just a convenience checklist showing this and other reclassifications. But I'm a little out of my depth here regarding what sources we follow as authoritative for this group of organisms (and no, it isn't WP:COMMONNAME - taxonomic reclassification is another kettle of fish.) I've dropped a notice at the Tree of Life noticeboard. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose as Wikipedia uses the commonest name, which is clearly the traditional one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No evidence that the proposed title is the most common English name for this topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It would be premature to make this move so soon, though it might be appropriate in the future. – Epipelagic (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose the move. The proposed change of the phylum name seems to be based on two arguments: that Cyanobacteria was never validly published under the bacteria/prokaryote or plant codes and that bacterial phylum names should use -ota endings. However, whatever happens to this proposal, cyanobacteria is likely to remain the common name for a long time. There may be a good case to change the phylum name used in the article and taxobox, but this should be a separate question. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 09:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if the name "officially" changes (which doesn't seem to be widely accepted yet), Cyanobacteria remains the common name and is way more widely used both in common and technical parlance. Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Too soon. I'd like to note that NCBI, an organization which maintains taxonomic classifications alongside a heap of other extraordinarily useful databases, lists cyanobacteriota as the phylum name. They are particularly authoritative here, but Wikipedia doesn't need to reflect the most recent changes in every field. Once the term is noticeably adopted the article title can reflect that. The note in the lede will suffice for now. &#8213; Synpath 16:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if the new name is adopted, Cyanobacteria is likely to remain the common name for the group, in the same way that Megalania remains the common name for Varanus priscus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cyanobacteria is still the WP:COMMONNAME. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not yet the scientific consensus. Plant surfer  21:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Too soon I agree this may be too recent, since the two names are synonymous and that "cyanobacteria" is by far more common. This is the case in French also, but the page was renamed anyway, and the removing the page to its previous name (which I tried) was rejected. 176.159.12.72 (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)