Talk:Gut microbiota

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Usernamekiran (talk | contribs) at 06:55, 11 September 2020 (→‎Requested move 4 September 2020: Add "human" to the title?: closed as consensus against move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WikiEd banner shell

Section Addition: Effects of Diet on Microbial Communities

Multiple factors have been shown to change the composition of the microbiome in the gut, and an influx of studies have been created to show the impact of diet on these relationships. In order to make the "Alterations of Flora Balance" section more complete, I would recommend addressing this new area of thought, comparing vegetarian, vegan, and western diets in relationship to gut health.

You can find a useful article here: Daniela Graf, Raffaella Di Cagno, Frida Fåk, Harry J Flint, Margareta Nyman, Maria Saarela & Bernhard Watzl (2015) Contribution of diet to the composition of the human gut microbiota, Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease, 26:1, DOI: 10.3402/mehd.v26.26164

Moving article

This article is almost entirely about humans, so the scope needs to be refined. As the article on the "gut" is gastrointestinal tract, this term should probably be changed to that for consistency. Lastly, "flora" doesn't have an associated omics term (e.g., microbiota vs microbiomics), so I'm moving this article to human gastrointestinal microbiota to address all three of these. All current incoming links from titles that don't contain "human" in the term should probably be redirected to the #Other animals section of this article since that's really the only part of this article that covers the topic in generality. There's too much content on humans here for it to be feasible to include (per WP:SIZE) in the same article as one which covers the topic for animals in general. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this article misuses the term "microbiota" to refer to the microbiome (i.e., the collection of all microbiota in an environment) in some instances, but I don't really feel like fixing it. If anyone wants to do that, kudos. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seppi333, I moved this article back to "Gut flora." Hear me out. The matter concerns WP:Common name and WP:NCMED. The common name for this topic is "gut flora." When it comes to the most common scientific/medical name, it's maybe "gut microbiota" now. Whatever the case, the common name is not "human gastrointestinal microbiota." And having the article titled "Human gastrointestinal microbiota" wasn't helping anything since "gut flora" still redirected here and a reader looking for content on other animals might be put off to see the "Human gastrointestinal microbiota" title and click away before taking the time to observe that the article has an "Other animals" section. Our medical articles don't have "human" in the title just because the topic also concerns other animals. We simply have an "Other animals" section and/or create a spin-off article specifically for that aspect if a spin-off article is warranted. For example, we have a Pregnancy article and a Pregnancy (mammals) and Pregnancy in fish article. I don't see that "human" needs to be in the title of the gut flora article any more than I see the need for the Cancer article to be titled "Human cancer" because cancer is not restricted to humans. Granted, cancer is much more of a human-centric topic than gut flora is, but the article being titled "Cancer" instead of "Human cancer" is still an example of standard practice.
Looking at Talk:Gut flora/Archive 1, I know that readers have been put off by the article being titled "gut flora" while the article is mainly about humans. But as noted in one of those discussions, the literature on this topic is human-centric. I'm not aware of that having changed. For discussion specifically about the term "flora", see Talk:Gut flora/Archive 1#Change of the term "Flora". Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t mind the rename, but we need to specify human. This is technically an anatomy article within the context of medicine; my move summary explains - or at least exemplifies - why “human” should be specified in the title. That being said, this article is more an MCB-related topic than a medical one. If we want to discuss animals more generally, we’re going to have to break it down into microbiota of groups of animals, classified by their primary food sources (grass-feeding animals, other herbivores, pure carnivores, etc. and then of course humans who eat basically everything. Reason being: different microbes reside in those food sources and diet strongly determines what microbial species proliferate in the GI tract. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seppi, per what I stated above about needlessly putting "human" in the title, I can't agree on the "add human to the title" matter. An anatomy article? Well, as is known, anatomy is a branch within medicine, which is why we have an anatomy section at WP:MEDMOS and adhere to WP:MEDRS for some aspects of sourcing anatomy material. For anatomy articles, we also don't unnecessarily add "human" to the title. See Talk:Vulva/Archive 5#Requested move 11 June 2020 and this about unnecessarily putting "human" in a title. So I reverted your latest addition of "human" to the title. Adding the word "human" to the title makes the article more restrictive, not less. I mean, if it's about humans, then why is the "Other animals" section there? Simply as a comparative anatomy matter? I'll go ahead and start a WP:Requested moves discussion. I'll alert WP:WikiProject Microbiology, WP:Med and WP:Anatomy to this discussion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to keep the article titles consistent, by all means, remove the "Human". I don't particularly care anyway. Just keep in mind that you will be broadening the scope of this article to an extent that it encompasses information on gut flora which is not currently covered on the page, is not relevant to the human GI tract, but might end up getting dumped in the body of this article anyway.

FWIW, the composition of the gut flora should be structured under sections titled "Bacteriome", "Fungome"/"Mycobiome", and "Virome". My company will end up generating a massive and constantly growing database on each of these omes at the very least for 3 different human GI biofluids: saliva from the mouth, gastric juice from the stomach, and feces. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor adds non-human animal gut flora material to any part of the article that is not the "Other animals" section or mixes in content about non-human animals with the content about humans in a way that is confusing or doesn't distinguish, then that content should be moved to the "Other animals" section (if WP:Due). This is what we do with other anatomy and medical articles that are human-centric. If by "you will be broadening the scope of this article to an extent that it encompasses information on gut flora which is not currently covered on the page, is not relevant to the human GI tract, but might end up getting dumped in the body of this article anyway", you are not just talking about non-human animal content, then perhaps you want to clarify? The article is called "Gut flora." So things characterized as gut flora or that are about the topic will go in this article if WP:Due and not excessive.
I have nothing against structuring the article in a way that is best. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps you want to clarify E.g., ruminants and the high content of soil bacteria that reside in their GI microbiomes are very rarely quantitated - and at very low levels if detected - in the human GI tract. Clostridium sporogenes comes to mind as a notable example of one of them. Also, on reconsideration, omitting human from the title seems fine. There seems to be a consensus below anyway. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 September 2020: Add "human" to the title?

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: consensus against move. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Gut flora → Human gut flora – There is discussion above whether "Human" should be added to the title so that the article is titled "Human gut flora." The reason for this is that the article is human-centric. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. My arguments against moving the article to add "human" to the title are as follows: Two things I've considered are WP:Common name and WP:NCMED. The common name for this topic is "gut flora." When it comes to the most common scientific/medical name, it's maybe "gut microbiota" now. Whatever the case, the common name doesn't have "human" in the title. Another thing is that having "human" in the title doesn't help anything since "gut flora" will still redirect here and a reader looking for content on other animals might be put off to see "human" in the title and click away before taking the time to observe that the article has an "Other animals" section. Adding the word "human" to the title makes the article more restrictive, not less. I mean, if it's about humans, then why is the "Other animals" section there? Simply as a comparative anatomy matter? Our medical (including anatomy) articles don't have "human" in the title just because the topic also concerns other animals. We simply have an "Other animals" section and/or create a spin-off article specifically for that aspect if a spin-off article is warranted. For example, we have a Pregnancy article and a Pregnancy (mammals) and Pregnancy in fish article. I don't see that "human" needs to be in the title of the gut flora article any more than I see the need for the Cancer article to be titled "Human cancer" because cancer is not restricted to humans. Granted, cancer is much more of a human-centric topic than gut flora is, but the article being titled "Cancer" instead of "Human cancer" is still an example of standard practice. Although some readers have been put off by the article being titled "gut flora" while the article is mainly about humans, it's been mentioned before on this talk page that the literature on this topic is human-centric. I'm not aware of that having changed. Also see Talk:Vulva/Archive 5#Requested move 11 June 2020 about not unnecessarily moving an article to add "human" to the title. There is no good reason to move Vulva to "Human vulva." Similar applies in this case. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per per WP:SPLIT and WP:NOTFINISHED. There is not enough content to justify a move /split to the needlessly disambiguated title "Human gut flora". This reflects the organisation of all of our medicine and anatomy articles. When there is enough content uploaded to justify a move, then the article can be moved. There isn't enough now because we are WP:NOTFINISHED. Further editing to the article is welcome. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Flyer22 Frozen's argument above ("Cancer" vs "Human cancer", "Vulva" vs. "Human vulva"). We don't need overly precise titles to guide our all-human readership. The "other animals" section can guide readers to the much more niche topics of the microbial denizens of other organisms. Ajpolino (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per Flyer22--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Convincing arguments above that Wikipedia is human centric. II | (t - c) 20:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Instead, create new content on different cases and spin out when required by article size. I expect the following should get separate coverage: carnivorous, omnivorous and herbivorous mammals, lizards, birds, sea creatures, carrion eaters. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, agreeing with the well-debated issues and examples by Flyer22 Frozen. Zefr (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose so far non-human animals don't use Wikipedia. cookie monster (2020) 755 04:17, 7 September 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gut_microbiota&oldid=977827721"