Talk:Escherichia coli

Former good articleEscherichia coli was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 10, 2014Good article nomineeListed
November 22, 2025Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Sexual Transmission of Urinary Tract Infection

Wow. Nothing about E. coli "sexual transmission" between humans, during anal sex and vulvic exchanges? Shouldn't that common piece of knowledge, of urinary tract infection (UTI), as an STD, and the primary STD vehicle for an infection be included? It is missing. There are plenty of references on it. I would add this to the article, but I don't know which tribe owns this article. Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) caused by E. coli are not classified as sexually transmitted infections (STIs), but sexual activity can facilitate the transfer of E. coli bacteria into the urinary tract, making sex a major risk factor for UTIs. This distinction is why UTIs are often confused with STIs, even though they are medically categorized differently! ~2025-37356-07 (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since E. coli isn't the only causative agent of UTIs, details on this transmission route probably belong on UTI as opposed to Escherichia coli. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article review

It has been a while since this article was reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

  • There are uncited statements throughout the article, including the entire "Diagnosis" section
  • There is a "factual accuracy" banner at the top of the "Phylogeny of E. coli strains" section. Is this still valid?

Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syn57

"Escherichia coli with a 57-codon genetic code" Mapsax (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Escherichia coli

The following discussion 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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No efforts have been made to address the nominator's concerns. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements throughout the article, including the entire "Diagnosis" section. There is a "factual accuracy" banner at the top of the "Phylogeny of E. coli strains" section: its validity should be assessed. Z1720 (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 2 January 2026

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Keep Escherichia coli, per the majority opposing the move request. (non-admin closure) GoSammy (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I advocate that since E. coli is a colloquial and short term for Escherichia coli, that we request that per WP:COMMONNAME, we perform a swap on this article to rename it to E. coli. What is your opinion, do you support it, and if not, why? GoSammy (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(See the article Binomial nomenclature.) In the context of this article, E. coli is not a colloquial term. In standard binomal nomenclature the first time a species is mentioned in a piece of text, the full name is given—that is the genus and specific epithet. So, in this article Escherichia coli. Each mention thereafter uses the first letter of the genus with the specific epithet, so E. coli, unless it could be confused with another genus being discussed in the same text. It is this usage that makes it appear that the shortened name is more commonly used than the full name. Your suggested move does not meet the criteria of WP:COMMONNAME in that there are other genera that begin with the letter E and have a species coli, for example, Entamoeba coli. This means that E. coli would be an ambiguous name, which goes against the precision and concision characteristics of a WP article title. The other characteristic that is not met by swapping is consistency. The other articles on various micro-organisms that are more frequently referred to in abbreviated form, such as H. influenzae, Staph. aureus, and Strep. pneumoniae are not at these names, but rather at the full binomial. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to Wikipedia, can you simplify this? GoSammy (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'd advise you to not make frivolous requests. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I get that it is frivolous, but a wide variety of English-language sources say this topic as E. coli. GoSammy (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your point? Clarinetguy097 (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll close this now. GoSammy (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Escherichia_coli