Talk:Monera

It is requested that an image or photograph of Monera be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

History of Science Low‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tree of Life Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microbiology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

old taxobox

?

Monera

E. coli.
Escherichia coli

Scientific classification

Kingdom:

Monera

Divisions

Eubacteria
Archaea

Taxobox removed because this is an obsolete classification —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.45.110 (talk • contribs) 31 March 2006

The article now possess a "paraphyletic box". Some issues of formatting of this template are present however. --Squidonius (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3 kingdom systems

Monera was never part of any three-kingdom system, and Monera has never included any Travis (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the 3 kingdom system only mentions the Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryota. Animeronin 15:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have tried to clear this up. It's still not perfect, but it is better than it was. --arkuat (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: Due to Template:Biological systems, some reference names are shared with Kingdom (biology) and must be kept in sync. —Random832 16:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ongoing vandalisms: to lock or not to lock?

This article seems to get more vandalism than most others either in the form of blanking or juvenile comments and something should be done — parenthetically, "Chips ahoy!" is a US biscuit unavailable elsewhere just in case anyone was wondering what the hell do pirates have to do with chips.
I'd request that the article be locked, but I do not know if any potentially good edit may be lost, in other words I do not know if this article is "finished". In wikipedian lingo this means FA or GA normally. I know that a brief section "Characteristics" describing what a bona fide moneron looks like (Haekel's lazy microscopy apart) is required and the language may require expanding where unclear (^{[clarification needed (complicated jargon)]} tags welcome).

I mention FA/GA as these by definition are clear and legible and generally, in my experience, constructive IP edits deal with clarity and spelling: locking an article would bar these constructive edits.

As I see it, there should be a "history of microbiology" page (in keeping with other fields) tying this page with others in a coherent corpus of work, such a page is of importance to the content of "Monera" as it would help determine what goes where regarding history sections, namely organise and give focus (a posteriori). (Currently most history section link to Bacteria which has a short history section...)

Should the article be locked as is? Should it be fixed up to GA/FA and then locked? What needs still to be done to improve it? --Squidonius (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page says that the five kingdom system is an obslete taxonomy system, but that is not true! The three domain system is in competition with the five kingdom system since the three domain is used by evolutionist and the five kingdom system is used by creationist. But if someone is to write an article that is meant to teach peaple that are ignorant in the subject then it should be unbiased and not biased as it is now. I hope everyone understands what I mean. :) Wikisk8er (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a biochemist/microbiologist with an interest in the history of microbiology — hence my edits here — and my education was Catholic — so I have no idea about creationism. I have changed a sentence in the lead, but marked it as unreferenced as I just learnt it here. Could someone write a new section about the two sides? This not only would make the article more complete, but it may stop the blanking! --Squidonius (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE, and being a former Catholic myself, I do not think any weight should be given to creationist stances at all. They can not and must not be discussed as if their opinion has the same weight and verifiability as scientific opinion. This article is scientific, not religious.

This is not bias, it is simply dishonest to claim that creatonist "science" has any grounds with preferring to stick with an outdated system. There is no stated reason for why they do so. In fact, I think most creationists actually reject the existence of Monera entirely, claiming Haeckel's drawings were gypsum crystals. I don't know if they realize that they're saying bacteria are mere figments of the imagination, but that seems to be the case. Their reason for attempting to retain the older scheme may simply be to still have a convenient target for their "ministries" (it wouldn't sound as convincing if they had to explain how Archaea and Bacteria are now believed to be different). I have removed all mentions of creationism in the article and I believe it should be semiprotected indefinitely.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have asked it be locked: hopefully we can go back to writing scientifically and not reverting edits! --Squidonius (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Monera

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Monera's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Copeland1938":

From Protist: Copeland, H. F. (1938). "The Kingdoms of Organisms". Quarterly Review of Biology. 13 (4): 383. doi:10.1086/394568. JSTOR 2808554.
From Life: Copeland, H.F. (1938). "The Kingdoms of Organisms". Quarterly Review of Biology. 13 (4): 383. doi:10.1086/394568. JSTOR 2808554.

Reference named "CavalierSmith2004":

From Kingdom (biology): Cavalier-Smith, T. (2004), "Only six kingdoms of life" (PDF), Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 271 (1545): 1251–62, doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2705, PMC 1691724, PMID 15306349, retrieved 2010-04-29
From Domain (biology): Cavalier-Smith, T. (2004), "Only six kingdoms of life" (PDF), Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 271: 1251–62, doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2705, PMC 1691724, PMID 15306349, retrieved 2010-04-29

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monera. 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) 11:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why are many students still taugh about this obsolote trash term. 2800:2145:B400:56A:7820:394C:C043:83D5 (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historical importance? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]