Talk:Vampirovibrionophyceae

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melainabacteria. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160609184729/http://www1.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/library/webb/BOT311/Cyanobacteria/Cyanobacteria.htm to http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/library/webb/BOT311/Cyanobacteria/Cyanobacteria.htm

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) 02:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Microbial Ecology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TVenvisci (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Kmvsetecka (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Contributions (November 2022)

Hello,

I have added significant sections to this article as part of a Wiki Education assignment. I discovered that since this article was started in 2018, there have not been any large findings regarding Melainabacteria. There is information regarding the source of it, but several contradicting pieces regarding its functionality and implications. As more research is done, this page should be updated accordingly. TVenvisci (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed move to Vampirovibrionophyceae

Vampirovibrionophyceae seems to be the ICNP designation for this class. LPSN website states: "The type genus of this class has alternatively been placed in the class 'Candidatus Melainabacteria' Soo et al. 2014." https://lpsn.dsmz.de/class/vampirovibrionophyceae T g7 (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

LPSN uses both "Candidatus Melainobacteriota" and Vampirovibrionophyceae. They must've been made a mistake. Google Scholar favors Vampirovibriophyceae with three more results. We can use that too. See https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=tr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Vampirovibrionophyceae&btnG= and https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=tr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Vampirovibriophyceae&btnG=. Jako96 (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

We should use "Candidatus Melainobacteriota" instead of "Candidatus Melainabacteria"

We should use "Candidatus Melainobacteriota" instead of "Candidatus Melainabacteria". Check LPSN: https://lpsn.dsmz.de/phylum/melainobacteriota Also we should place vampirovibrionophytes in Cyanobacteriota/Cyanobacteria because LPSN also did it: https://lpsn.dsmz.de/class/vampirovibrionophyceae Jako96 (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Wait, "Candidatus Melinabacteriota" and Vampirovibrionophyceae are synonyms. But LPSN uses both of them. It must've been a mistake. We should use Vampirovibrionophyceae or Vampirovibriophyceae, they are both valid names. Google Scholar seems to favor Vampirovibriophyceae with three more results. See https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=tr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Vampirovibrionophyceae&btnG= for Vampirovibrionophyceae and https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=tr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Vampirovibriophyceae&btnG= for Vampirovibriophyceae. Jako96 (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's really a mistake by LPSN. "Candidatus Melainobacteriota" is a phylum, Vampirovibrionophyceae is a class. The nomenclatural codes don't really consider names to be synonyms if they are not at the same rank, and most taxonomic databases aren't set up to handle synonymy across different ranks. Plantdrew (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Vampirovibrionophyceae is a class of Cyanobacteriota in LPSN. And "Candidatus Melainobacteriota" is a whole different phylum. I contacted with them and said this was wrong. Jako96 (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96: there is no mistake and you are just confused. The two V names are explicitly proposed to be under Cyanobacteria/ota and not stand under any separate phylum. Taxonomic freedom allows you to arrange any bunch of legitimate synonyms in any way that makes sense (i.e. monophyletic with regard to everything you claim to know). —Artoria2e5 🌉 05:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 7 June 2025

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: moved to Vampirovibrionophyceae * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

---

Candidatus Melainobacteriota → MelainabacteriaMelainabacteria – The group's common name is melainabacteria. Jako96 (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Melainabacteria title. Would support Vampirovibrionophyceae. Bacteria don't really have common names, and while Melainabacteria may appear more in the literature, that's because that name has been around since 2013, and Vampirovibrionophyceae has only been around since 2023. We don't use outdated scientific names as titles while we wait for usage in the literature to catch up to the current name. Plantdrew (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  I support this too. I requested Melainabacteria because I thought I wouldn't be able to get consensus. Jako96 (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  T_g7 also supports Vampirovibrionophyceae (see Talk:Candidatus Melainobacteriota#Proposed move to Vampirovibrionophyceae). Jako96 (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  Wait, actually I support moving to Melainabacteria but using Vampirovibrionophyceae as a class of Cyanobacteriota. And, then there is the Asgard (Archaea) page. Some researchers still use the word "Asgard" though. Jako96 (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You don’t take a name with no standing over a pro-valid one: that is just plain disrespect of the Codes. Take a valid one (Vampirovibrionophyceae/Vampirovibrionia) over a pro-valid one, that I support. —Artoria2e5 🌉 05:07, 29 June 2025 (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.

Both laws are valid

@Jako96:, you are messing things up AND mixing codes. If you can tell which from which, don’t touch it.

• do not put quotes on Vampirovibrionia. It is valid in ICNP.
• If you want to use the phyceae name (Botanical code), you don’t use the bacterota name (Bacterial code) in the same sentence. Makes you seem very inconsistent.
• The parenthetical for rank and code matters.

Artoria2e5 🌉 04:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

No it's not inconsistent, and there was already quotation marks on Vampirovibrionia on some version of this page, that is why I was confused. I'm not messing things up. Jako96 (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Change instances of melainabacteria to Vampirovibrionophyceae

It seems to me that for clarity, where appropriate, instances of the word melainabacteria should be changed to the word Vampirovibrionophyceae, and a sentence should be placed near the top stating that Vampirovibrionophyceae was formerly referred to as melainabacteria. It seems to me that the current version would be confusing to the average reader. T g7 (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)