Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Algae/Archive 1

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


Page parameters in reference templates[edit]

It looks like none of the reference templates accept page parameters. Might be a good idea to add that. Kaldari (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I don't usually use page parameters. I will find someone to add them in. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High importance algae articles[edit]

User:EncycloPetey has added a number of articles to the lists of high importance algae genera, species, and other articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae/Taxon notes according to the assessment scale he created at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Algae/Assessment.

I have asked a user about a bot to tag articles with the project banner. My initial plan was to have the bot tag articles and place them as lists on subpages in Algae project space, however, I now realize that categories according to taxa already exist, so the lists may not be necessary. Still, having the bot put the banner on the article talk pages will be useful, as they can be more easily assessed with user editing tools by project members.

I would like to have all high importance genera and species and other articles identified, though, so that as soon as a taxonomy is agreed upon these articles can be a second priority (after divisions and classes) in making sure taxonomies agree, cleaning up articles, and attaining at least basic articles on all of these genera and species and other. Some of the non-genera, non-species articles of high importance, for example, kelp, agar, nori, phycology.

If you know of articles that should be added to these lists to be tagged for high importance, please add them. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project tagging bot[edit]

If you did the job, you could probably contribute useful information to how we go about it. From your edits to the Nitella articles you obviously have background knowledge in algae and taxonomy, and I think the task will be large, but finite, to straighten out the algal taxonomies, particularly the more Wikipedia editors we have contributing some amount of knowledge. As you must know, the algae articles on Wikipedia are a serious mess. It seems to me that a well-planned reorganization would be more useful than getting it done quickly, including all tasks such as bots. Are you willing to do it? What is involved? We should probably discuss the bot at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Algae, where I mention it. Also, articles will be tagged both from information in the taxobox and from lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae/Taxon notes. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up some good points. Okay, I'll go ahead and handle the task. Now that we have the who settled, we need to figure out the what. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae/Taxon notes, you have a list of algae articles categorized by importance. The bot could go through those, and add {{WP Algae}} with an appropriate assessment to their talk pages. I can go through all {{alga-stub}}s and make sure those articles are tagged, but those would be low importance by default. What else could the bot do? — The Earwig @ 01:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked User:Earwig to create the bot for putting project banners on the article talk pages. We have a large task with only a few editors, but it could be fairly straight-forward with an early organization of tasks. User:Earwig already has a bot that is authorized to place banners on project talk pages (although not for this project), and has some experience with algae and taxonomies.

I would like to start by asking that the high importance algae genera and species on the page be tagged with the WikiProject Algae banner, marked high importance, and inherit a class from any other project banners already placed on the article talk page. Then the Non-taxa related articles can have the banners placed on their talk pages, with no importance, and an inherited class if possible.

It might be useful for the bot to create subpages in the project for lists of algae phyla (no need for the bot), classes (probably by bot), orders, families, genera, and species by taxonomy. I'm not sure how this should work, but it may help with some of the algae to have them sorted at this level, rather than to go through the category pages.

I would also like the algae categorized by phyla, or class, once we determine what phyla and classes we are using. Can bots do this, also, from a list or from the phylum or class in the taxobox once these have been sorted? If we have the Xanthophytes, for example, as a class, we should have this class as its category within the Heterokonts, and not confine them to the huge Heterokont phylum.

I believe the task must be generally approved by the task force that monitors bot activities on Wikipedia. I ask that the task be to generally place the banner on all articles with taxoboxes that indicate they are an algal taxon, and to place the banner on all other articles as indicated by lists on the Taxon notes page. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. To summarize:
  • Yes.
  • Place a banner with an inherited class and (low? none?) importance on all other algae articles.
  • Yes, this done according to the taxobox. We'll have to provide a list of the taxa.
  • Create project subpages listing all phyla, classes, orders, families, genera, and species by taxonomy.
  • We still need input from others on this. The phyla, classes, orders and families, yes. I don't know if genera and species will prove useful.
  • Categorize algae articles by phyla or class.
  • Yes, probably by order or family, not by phyla or class, and only after consensus has been reached for how we categorize them on Wikipedia and what level, order or family.
Correct? I can reuse my old code for the banner tagging, the other code will need to be written from scratch. — The Earwig @ 22:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this sounds like what we need. For the lists, which will be based upon the categorizing, and for any categorizing, though, we have to reach agreement first. The banners are straightforward. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost[edit]

Hello,

Would you like to provide an interview with some members for the Wikipedia Signpost? We'd be happy to feature your project in our WikiProject Report. Just let me know at the project page or drop me aline on my talk page! --mono 00:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Algae articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Algae articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New stub categories[edit]

I would like to add some new stub categories to better the process of sorting stubs and improving them as necessary. In particular, I would like a Chlorophyta stub category for all green algae stubs that are not Ulvophyceae or Chlrophyceae (and make these subcats), a diatom stub cat, Rhodophyta, and a Dinoflagellate, brown algae, Heterokont, Haptophyta, and Cryptomonad stub cats as subcategories of the Chromalveolate stubs.

Note these stub categories would pull out large groups of organisms generally studied by specialists.

Does anyone have objections or counter suggestions before I propose this at the stub sorting page?

--KMLP (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split of Category:Algae stubs and Category:Chromalveolate stubs[edit]

Please discuss proposal here. Thanks. --KMLP (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to monitor Algae article[edit]

Would plant members monitor the Algae article more closely while a blocked user User:Alacante45 continues to vandalize it using IP addresses? He/she is adding what is either a spam link (possibly malware, don't click it!) via different IPs, two so far, while blocked as a user for edit warring to keep the addition in to the article.

I have requested semi-protection. If the article is semi-protected, I will not be able to revert it from my IP address.

Thanks for the help. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject talk page tagging[edit]

I am asking User:The Earwig to use his project tagging bot to tag algae articles. He seems willing to so with some guidance, and he already has a bot designed for the purpose. He is also knowledgeable enough about taxonomy to follow our technical discussions and directions.

I have asked him to tag the articles to start. The articles can inherit class from any other project templates on their talk pages, although Red Algae articles cannot inherit importance.

I would like to sort the Green Algae into subcategories, then move on them, the yellow brown algae, the brown algae sensu stricto, a few other groups.

Any comments? See any easy categories for tagging? --KMLP (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see any problems with what you are doing. How about Category:Haptophytes? There isn't a category yet for Cryptomonads but I could see creating one. Kingdon (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Haptophytes could be tagged. Cryptomonads would be an appropriate category and could get tagged. I am also trying to get someone with a bot or who uses AWB extensively for doing the categorizing. --Kleopatra (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC) (usurpation)[reply]

Your Project in the Signpost[edit]

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on your project for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Have a great day! ǝɥʇM0N0 03:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popular pages project sign-up[edit]

I've signed WikiProject Algae up for Popular pages. It would be nice to start article rewriting focus, while still categorizing articles, and finding out what articles are most read is a start. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pageview stats[edit]

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Algae to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates now support more identifiers[edit]

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):


  • {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}


Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review[edit]

Please assist Several months ago, I hastily tagged a number of pages that were subcategorized under Category:Algae, including several that are apparently out of the scope of this project. Although I realize this puts a burden on the members of this project (and I'm sorry for that), I think it would be wise for someone to review these talk page edits. I have also posted them to WT:PLANTS and you can see them here; there are 280 in sum that need review. If I can be of assistance in this matter, please post to my talk. Thanks and sorry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started reviewing them (details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Algae tagging; help would be appreciated. Kingdon (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Oocystales -- green alga[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oocystales I have nominated this article for deletion as it appear to be a database error, please assist by adding an appropriate citation or participating in the deletion discussion if you can. Thanks, Eau (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy[edit]

Wikipedia algae articles use a variety of taxonomies. The algae are a mess, even within clades. I have come across two members of the same genus with different taxonomies and Cyanabacteria classified as Eukaryotes.

I propose the adoption of a taxonomy from one of the current textbooks, acknowledging any well-accepted changes supported in the taxonomic literature (review articles, well-cited literature, not primary research). My suggestion is to use Lee, a well-used textbook with a taxonomy based upon evolutionary relations. It's not a perfect choice, but algae taxonomies, even or especially at the highest levels, are in flux at this point in time. However, I don't believe our goal should be to show the most up-to-date, but to establish a usable taxonomy that editors can follow when creating articles and readers can understand when gathering information. Articles should, of course, relate issues with the taxonomy in the text.

Lee taxonomy without annotations[edit]

Except for Cyanobacteria (a well-supported prokaryotic phylum, although occasionally listed as a eukartyote on Wikipedia) Phyla end with "-phyta" and classes with "-phyceae"

II. prokaryotic algae[edit]

  • Cyanobacteria.

III. evolution of the chloroplast[edit]

  • Glaucophyta
  • Rhodophyta
  • Chlorophyta
    • Prasinophyceae
    • Charophyceae
    • Ulvophyceae
  • Chlorophyceae

IV. evolution of one membrane of C ER[edit]

  • Euglenophyta
  • Dinophyta
  • Apicomplexa

V. evolution of two membranes of C ER and the Chlorarachniophyta[edit]

  • Cryptophyta
  • Heterokontophyta
    • Chrysophyceae
    • Synurophyceae
    • Eustigmatophyceae
    • Pinguiophyceae
    • Dictyochophyceae
    • Pelagophyceae
    • Bolidophyceae
    • Bacillariophyceae
    • Raphidophyceae
    • Xanthophyceae
    • Phaeothamniophyceae
    • Phaeophyceae
  • Prymnesiophyta

Lee taxonomy with each taxon followed by annotations on current Wikipedia taxonomies[edit]

Lee, divisions and some classes with notes and current Wikipedia taxonomies following each:

II. prokaryotic algae[edit]

III. evolution of the chloroplast[edit]

IV. evolution of one membrane of C ER[edit]

  • Euglenophyta -- as Euglenozoa (sensu Cavalier-Smith) in Domain: Eukarya; Kingdom: Excavata; Phylum: Euglenozoa.
    Kingdom Excavata: Phyla (Metamonada, Loukozoa, Euglenozoa, Percolozoa)
  • Dinophyta -- as Dinoflagellate in Domain: Eukarya; Kingdom: Chromalveolata; Superphylum: Alveolata Phylum: Dinoflagellata.
    Kingdom Chromalveolata: Domain: Eukarya; (unranked) Bikonta; (unranked): Corticata; Kingdom: Chromalveolata
    Chromalveolata contains: Alveolata (superphylum), plus phyla Heterokontophyta, Haptophyta, Cryptophyta,
  • Apicomplexa -- in Domain: Eukarya; Kingdom: Chromalveolata; Superphylum: Alveolata Phylum: Apicomplexa.

V. evolution of two membranes of C ER and the Chlorarachniophyta[edit]

  • Cryptophyta -- as Cryptomonad (a "group" of algae) in Domain: Eukaryota; Kingdom: Chromalveolata; (unranked): Hacrobia; Phylum: Cryptophyta.

Class: Cryptophyceae

  • Heterokontophyta -- as Heterokont in Domain: Eukarya; Kingdom: Chromalveolata; Phylum: Heterokontophyta.
    Wikipedia includes these photosynthetic classes ("colored groups"): Actihrysophyceae (axodines), Bacillariophyceae (diatoms), Bolidophyceae, Chrysophyceae (golden algae), Eustigmatophyceae, Pelagophyceae, Phaeophyceae (brown algae), Phaeothamniophyceae, Raphidophyceae, Synurophyceae, Xanthophyceae (yellow-green algae)
    • Chrysophyceae -- as Golden algae in Domain: Eukarya, Kingdom: Chromalveolata, Phylum: Heterokontophyta, Class: Chrysophyceae.
    • Synurophyceae -- as Synurid in Domain: Eukaryota; Kingdom: Chromalveolata; Phylum: Heterokontophyta; Class: Synurophyceae; Order: Synurales.
    • Eustigmatophyceae -- as Eustigmatophyte in Domain: Eukaryota; Kingdom: Chromalveolata; Phylum: Heterokontophyta; Class: Eustigmatophyceae; Order: Eustigmatales.
    • Pinguiophyceae -- as a heterokont phylum.
    • Dictyochophyceae -- as Dictyochales or Silicoflagellates in Kingdom: Chromalveolata; Phylum: Heterokontophyta; Class: Actinochrysophyceae; Order: Dictyochales.
    • Pelagophyceae -- as Pelagophyte (with mentions in some Picoplankton articles) in Domain: Eukaryota; Kingdom: Chromalveolata; Phylum: Heterokontophyta; Class: Pelagophyceae.
    • Bolidophyceae -- as Bolidomonas in Domain: Eukaryota; Kingdom: Chromalveolata; Phylum: Heterokontophyta; Class: Bolidophyceae; Genus: Bolidomonas
    • Bacillariophyceae -- in Kingdom: Chromalveolata; Phylum: Heterokontophyta; Class: Bacillariophyceae.
    • Raphidophyceae -- as Raphidophyte in Domain: Eukaryota; Kingdom: Chromalveolata; Phylum: Heterokontophyta; Class: Raphidophyceae.
    • Xanthophyceae -- as Yellow-green algae in Domain: Eukaryota; Kingdom: Chromalveolata; Phylum: Heterokontophyta; Class: Xanthophyceae.
    • Phaeothamniophyceae -- as Phaeothamniophyceae is a heterokont grouping of species separated from Chrysophyceae.
    • Phaeophyceae -- as Brown algae in Domain: Eukaryota; Kingdom: Chromalveolata; Phylum: Heterokontophyta; Class: Phaeophyceae.
  • Prymnesiophyta -- as Prymnesiophyceae is a haptophyte class.
  • Wikipedia adds phylum Haptophyta -- as Haptophyte in Domain: Eukaryota; Kingdom: Chromalveolata; Phylum: Haptophyta.

The proposal[edit]

I propose that we adopt the Lee taxonomy as stated above, with the use of phyla or divisions and classes as they are in Lee. This is not to favor Lee out of any other text, but, rather, to adopt a reliable, referenced taxonomy that can be used to allow readers to understand the relationships, where they exist, among various taxa of photosynthetic organisms. There should be specific changes or notations in articles to reflect new information from the literature that is well-accepted and shows changes in relationships. Depending upon the nature of the information, this could be reflected in a change in the taxonomy as listed in the taxobox, or with a note in the article.

The above Wikipedia taxonomies are mostly from the taxoboxes. Some of the taxonomies in the articles contradict the taxonomies in the taxoboxes.

--68.127.232.132 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal above (as it is at the moment) would need some revisions to iron out a few inconsistencies and to address some divergences from current WP taxonomy. (1) Archaeplastida is below kingdom rank for the Rhodophyta but above kingdom rank for the "Chlorophyta", (2) Some chlorophyte taxa are listed as kingdom Viridiplantae but others as Plantae, (3) Wikipedia prefers unranked Streptophytina over the division-rank Streptophyta, (4) We've been using Charophyta for the various charophyte groups, even though it is a paraphyletic group. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Lee is the list, then I follow with the Wikipedia taxonomy. The Lee clade Euglenophyta -- is presented in Wikipedia's taxonomy as Euglenozoa (sensu Cavalier-Smith) in the Domain: Eukarya; Kingdom: Excavata; Phylum: Euglenozoa.
The inconsistencies where Archaeoplatida are below kingdom in one taxobox and above in another, and the mix-up with Chlorophyte algae are from the Wikipedia taxonomies. This confuses the reader for no reason.
There is no problem with mixing the Lee taxonomy with already used and well-supported taxonomies in Wikipedia, particularly this is not problematic when dealing with Charophyceae if Wikipedia makes a single argument for using it. However, the current article on the clade or group "Streptophytina" is so confusing as to be an assault on the reader sent there to figure out what the taxobox means by Streptophytina. In addition, I understand that Wikipedia editors may prefer to treat Charales with the land plants rather than the algae. All of this does not matter too much as the consensus is pretty strong about the evolutionary relationships but weak about what to call everything. I suggest finding a textbook and a couple of other secondary or tertiary sources that support one taxonomy and using that, writing an excellent article on Streptophytina, then moving forward.
It is also not a problem advancing the Lee taxonomies with well-supported information from genetic and molecular taxonomies that diverge from Lee. These, however, should arise from textbooks, review articles or well-cited articles from the literature.
One problem with the algae in Wikipedia is the random use of singular taxonomies or original research from the literature mixed in with well-established taxonomies. If Wikipedia wishes to promote a cutting edge taxonomy for the algae, such as intermingling higher level taxonomies sensu Cavalier-Smith with 19th century pre-molecular taxonomies, it is not only the readers who will be confused, but the writers also. Wikipedia should not be using taxonomies that have appeared in only one article in the literature without any follow-up support from taxonomists and evolutionary biologists. Doing so makes it impossible for both the writer and the reader. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does present problems, but sticking to old classifications in the light of strong recent evidence can cause problems as well. Consider the Vaucheriaceae, which had a single genus Vaucheria until very recently. The genus Pseudodichotomosiphon (formerly considered a chlorophycean alga) has turned out to have diadinoxanthin, which excludes it from the green algae altogether. Keeping it there would be more confusing to readers than repositioning it among the chromalveolates where it belongs. I do agree that we need a stable high-level taxonomy, but I can't agree that there is a single published system available for all algae at all ranks that can satisfactorily be followed at this time. There has simply been too much important revision in the past two decades and no comprehensive system has attempted yet to keep up with the significant discoveries.
Moving genera due to published molecular/genetic data will not conflict with this proposal, although it should follow Wikipedia guidelines and not be based only upon a single research study. When other authors cite the study, indicating expert acceptance, then the genera should be moved. Many problems with genera have been resolved on single studies, with convincing genetic evidence, over the past two decades, but other scientists have readily accepted these changes. I don't think we need to be concerned with this issue within the scheme of this proposal.
I don't think there is a single published system for all algae at all ranks. For one thing, few venture far into the Rhodophyta. However, Wikipedia is not an here to arbitrate among the many studies; although it seems we've been acting as if we should or could. This is confusing for everyone, writers and readers. I think that following Lee, with possibly some revisions, for the higher level taxonomies of algae on Wikipedia, could lead to a usable system for writing articles on Wikipedia, and a readable result for users of the encyclopedia. Right now, I hesitate to write articles about Heterokont algae on Wikipedia because of the serious disarray. I have no idea what to put in the taxoboxes in most instances, because when I go to look at other species or genera in the same order or class, I find that they don't all belong to the same class or phyla or unranked taxon even within the same family or genus. Having multiple taxonomies that can be used for a single genus is not an acceptable alternative when the higher level taxonomies are in great flux. What is an acceptable alternative to using the latest is to find a stable and respectable source, modify it from other stable and respectable sources, and then use these for higher level taxonomies.
My suggestion to use Lee is not a preference for Lee, but an acknowledgment that this is a textbook with a longstanding classification that is readily available. It is a tertiary source, and he is an accepted and highly respected phycologist. I think trying to outdo him with our cumulative expertise is a sure sign for putting together an unworkable system, like the one we already have.
An important part of my proposal is that articles be properly annotated with information about changes in the taxonomies, or differences among groups of researchers. This can deal with discrepancies between the working taxonomy and any major differences. It can also help the user to understand the current research. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same problem with the liverworts; there isn't a comprehensive system that reflects the major revisions of the past 10 years that have resulted from molecular research. The most recent comprehensive liverwort classifications contain groupings that are at odds with all recent published studies by including grossly polyphyletic groups and failing to recognize significant basal clades. What I've chosen to do is use a somewhat conservative approach based on the orders used in two widely-available publications from 1966 and 1983, but to recognize the most significant changes published in recent studies, such as the additional class Haplomitriopsida and transfer of Blasia to its own order in the class Marchantiopsida instead of in the order Metzgeriales in the Jungermanniopsida.
Then how to you reference this in articles? Can you provide a link, or a couple? I know there are a number of very well-respected researchers in the liverworts, and I should be more versed in their taxonomies than I am, but I would like to see how you are handling this situation. My concern about mixing and matching two older taxonomies is that it amounts to original research on our part. I am trying to avoid any original research that compiles parts of different taxonomies. In addition, I believe the liverworts are a well-accepted clade, but algae are nothing of the sort. This is why I assume that most Wikipedia editors will want to use classifications from primarily land plant sources for the Charophyte green algae, for example, and I have left this option open in the proposal. With liverworts, taking branchings from entirely different kingdoms would hardly be appropriate, and might constitute highly original research, while it's the nature of the game for "algae." --68.127.232.132 (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Haplomitriopsida article has citations supporting its recognition as a new class. You can also see what I've done for Metzgeriales#Families, where work since the Stotlers published their classification does not support their 2000 classification. The Stotlers are great with morphology and taxonomy, but there just hasn't been enough full data research yet on which to base a thoroughly revised liverwort classification. It may take another 10 years before the liverworts catch up with APG I. At least in this case, I was able to cite a Stotler paper for the refutation, which preserves their authority in the matter. There are a lot of other situations in liverwort papers over the past 40 years where the countering paper is rather nastily written. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are good examples of how we should handle it always on Wikipedia. The new class is well supported by four articles that list a number of the leading authorities or their labs in the authorship, with publication in at least one major taxonomic publication (Cladistics) and a leading journal by a relevant scientific society. The Metzgeriales Families section of the article includes information that deals with all of the associated problems in arriving at the current taxonomy. This is important information in the history of science, particularly when dealing with plants at the family level, a primary classification level in botany. A few points are not clear, but I will ask for clarification on that article's talk page. You've been doing it the way I propose we handle it for Algae. It's a sensible and doable approach. For Algae, "doable" matters more, due to the fact that we are not dealing with a clade. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, when it was discovered that the Hydatellaceae were not monocots but are closely related to the water lilies, Wikipedia made that revision. Leaving them in the monocots would not reflect current knowledge because that is a major change in phylogenetic position. So, my opinion is that any change that requires a major repositioning ought to be made, but I can agree that minor ones may not be desirable until it becomes clear that they are accepted.
Don't you think botanists were simply relieved when they read the Nature article and just said, "Thank God, I never have to mess with scoring Trithuria traits again?" --68.127.232.132 (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever we agree upon, we ought to compare against WikiSpecies and other major Wikipedias in other languages. If they aren't too different, or (more likely) don't exist yet, then we ought to also post the taxonomy we're using at Wikispecies because that will help guide and coordinate the several Wikipedia that are working on algae. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at WikiSpecies. I will check the French, Spanish, German, Polish and Russian Wikipedia taxonomies if I find the time. I don't know if coordination is possible or necessary. I know the German Wikipedia does plants differently from how en.Wikipedia does plants. I'm afraid it will be hard enough to guide ourselves out of the insanity, without adding anyone else, but other than that there is no reason not to share useful ideas with other Wikiepdias. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the Germans are the only major differing WP, then I wouldn't worry. They usually differ when it comes to bryophytes, since their primary bryophyte editor religiously follows the German publications by Jan-Peter Frahm, who seems to use his own peculiar system. Most projects follow the English WP's lead or rely on checking against WikiSpecies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Germans are my concern. Their Wikipedia is well-written and constitutes a major Wikipedia, but following their course on plants would be impossible. I will still look. I think that if other Wikipedias tend to follow en.Wikipedia's lead, then being more conservative in choosing a source, such as primarily relying upon a textbook, is important. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm having trouble following what you are proposing. The above list seems to both try to list what wikipedia currently has and the Lee classification and I'm not sure which is which. Kingdon (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've included a list of the Lee, plus the current Wikipedia classification. I should have made a table, but the Wikipedia taxonomies are so confused that it's impossible to figure them out. I will pull out the Lee and post it separately, plus I will add underlines above. I tried repeatedly to make it clearer, but I did not include a good explanation. Give me a bit of time to post the Lee so that readers can understand it. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photos[edit]

Free photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/21187899@N03/sets/72157603275702672/ maybe could be useful. --Snek01 (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open call for template makers[edit]

I posted a request to add a few more stub categories for WikiProject Algae.[1] Is there someone available who is willing to create the templates? We need 3 right now:

  • Rhodophyta stubs,
  • Diatom stubs, and
  • Phaeophyceae stubs.

I created the categories, and I picked the scientific names for consistency with other stub names, and for one word names, but feel free to override my decision and use common names.

A coralline red algae would be good for the Rhodophyta stubs, and a kelp for the Phaeophyceae stubs. There are some good diatom images.

Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of stubs that can be tagged as soon as the templates are created:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae/Stub sorting

--Kleopatra (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chlorella[edit]

I, I am concerned about the Chlorella page. It seems more neagive about nutrition than any other source of info. Brendan braiser said that NASA use the stuff...

Don't know how to provoke change on this page though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.55.251 (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at the talk page (short answer to "how to provoke change" is to point to WP:BOLD, WP:WELCOME, etc). Kingdon (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Charophyte bot articles to move into project space[edit]

These Charophyte green algae articles all have taxoboxes and algaebase links and can be moved into project space. They were moved into pages like this Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae/Articles/Zygogonium before, and, unless there's a reason to do otherwise, they can be moved from the deleted to similar project pages. At the end, the temporary project pages will be easy to find for anyone to delete them. --Kleopatra (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the Zygnema, I noticed that the person who deleted on version, MBisanz, deleted a lot of the algae articles. Are there various deleted versions available? --Kleopatra (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It looks as though (briefly) there was an article about the genus. Of the 19 deleted edits, only 2 concern the alga. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. I wonder if the band's any good? The alga is obscure, but an important and interesting genus. --Kleopatra (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Botryococcus braunii article includes sources and price lists[edit]

And, the WP:OWNer of the article "Don't go treading into articles where you don't discuss issues beforehand, and don't delete sections which the first and primary editors has made great efforts to keep correct and updated!"[2] has declared strong intentions to battle over the situation.

I removed the price list.[3] He returned it with [4] this edit summary, "undoing vandalism." Then posted this on the article talk page, "I will repair this vandalism. Kleopatra, Go away."

He also includes this to IP editors warning on the article's talk page:

"I was the founder of this article, and while I am not a professional biochemist, I do make great efforts to be accurate and complete in my presentation of information. Too many times, others have come in and made changes to this page without discussing the issue here first. Do Not Do This! - If you think something is incorrect, ask here in Talk first, and we'll try to straighten it out. Also, make sure that both during edits you are signed into your Wikipedia account and during chat you sign your comments with four tildes.


Edits that do not follow these guidelines will, from now, on, be reverted before further discussion!

Bobkeyes (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)"

In other words, he has rewritten policy to exclude IP edits from the his article. (Bold in the original.)

Would someone please contribute to the discussion. This is my first effort to get others to discuss the issue with him, but I assume, from the statements on the talk page, that this may require plenty of work.

Some assistance in this matter is appreciated. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)]][reply]

Please show exactly which of the rule you think I am violating by asking for common courtesy and group work. I keep a low profile as an editor here on wikipedia, adding to articles where I believe there is a need. I don't edit as an everyday armchair activity. It is possible that I have mis-navigated bureaucratic requirements that been piled on since the years I first came here. Bobkeyes (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure any thing more needs to be done, Kleopatra; after your note here, I think it's pretty clear to anyone reading the page that it is perfectly fine to edit anonymously or without somehow proving yourself first. No problem here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bobkeyes, asking for credentials is fine, but of course you can't insist on them. I would encourage you to read wp:NOTVAND before accusing anyone of vandalism again and to discuss your reversions to good-faith edits. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preferred taxonomy[edit]

While expanding Embryophyte#Phylogeny_and_classification, I wanted to say something about the phylogeny and classification of the group, which clearly relates to the 'green algae' within which the clade is embedded. So I looked over here for some consensus taxonomy. If the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Algae#Taxonomy reached a consensus, then I don't understand what it was. The taxonomy at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Algae/Taxon_notes doesn't correspond to articles on algal groups. In particular, it treats "Chlorophyta" as a name for all green algae (i.e. as a name for what is almost always called "Viridiplantae" in taxoboxes in individual articles) and does not name the two clades within "Viridiplantae".
So, to ask more specific questions. There appear to be thee different ways of classifying groups within Viridiplantae:

  1. Divide them into two clades, "chlorophytes" and "streptophytes/charophytes". The second clade includes embryophytes.
  2. Divide them into three groups, monophyletic "chlorophytes", paraphyletic "streptophyte/charophyte algae", and monophyletic embryophytes.
  3. An older system in which "Chlorophyta" = all green algae except stoneworts and embryophytes, "Charophyta" = stoneworts, and embryophytes are the third group. I would have said that this is obsolete, but the table at Plant#Current_definitions_of_Plantae says "Charophyta (i.e. stoneworts)", although "Charophyta (e.g. stoneworts)" could be meant.

Names used seem to vary considerably; in particular "Streptophyta" and "Charophyta" seem to be used in systems (1) and (2) for the monophyletic taxon and the paraphyletic taxon.

  • Does WikiProject Algae have a preference between (1) and (2)?
  • What are the references which support particular names used in (1) and (2)? Both seem to be in used in articles but without, as far as I can find at present, clear referenced sources.

At present what is written about this specific issue at Embryophyte#Phylogeny_and_classification is a bit vague and un-sourced, although I think correct. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's more complicated that that, as there are additional options in the literature, such as using "Streptophyceae" for the paraphyletic assemblage of algal members of the streptophyte clade. There just doesn't seem to be any consensus yet in the literature, so we'll probably have to just choose one option. I'm in favor of using "Chlorophyta" to mean the green algae that aren't charophytes and "Charophyta" as a paraphyletic name. I would place these at the rank of division. That does not mean I favor the use of "Streptophyta" or "Embryophyta" in taxoboxes, however, as it adds another level that isn't particularly useful in a taxobox summary. These labels can (and should) be placed appropriately in cladograms of groups that branch off early, but I don't think they need to be used in the taxoboxes.
The references I have that utilize this three-way split are rather dated, and so I wouldn't use them for citation. But then, most of the algal books I own are a bit dated. The recent journal articles I have on charophytes use "Streptophyta", which (a) is at odds with what all the other botanists in other fields are doing for the divisional rank, and (b) is not necessarily representative since those articles are by just two authors. Unfortunately, I do not have access to a university library or to on-line journals, so I can't sample recent publications by other authors I know are working in the field. I might be able to contact a few of them directly though, since I know a few of them (or at least used to correspond with them). --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked (I do have access to some electronic journals although not all I need because botany isn't a subject my institution covers much), and can't find any recent (at least post-1997) references that support the three-way split that I too personally prefer (the second column in the table at Embryophyte#Phylogeny_and_classification). So I hoped that someone here did know of some.
The problem seems to be that after the Kenrick & Crane 1997 monograph, most authors either (a) aren't interested in Linnean ranks and just use clade names or (b) believe that sister taxa should be at the same level, and so come up with classifications like Lewis & McCourt (2004) in which there are only two divisions within the entire plant kingdom: Chlorophyta (all chlorophyte algae) and Charophyta (by which they mean all streptophyte algae + embryophytes).
If there aren't any references we are prepared to use, then it seems to me that we do have quite a serious problem, because the higher level classification used in the majority of plant taxoboxes does not meet WP:SOURCE. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree with that last sweeping generalization. The problem is more one in which there isn't a single all-encompassing system that works in a traditional Linnean fashion across all groups. Different botanists have favored local versions for their own taxonomic groups at higher ranks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we entirely agree about the absence of a "single all-encompassing system". That's not my concern here. My concern was (and is) about the sources that support the use of specific taxonomies, and I had hoped to get some guidance here. Here are some examples to support my claim that many plant sensu lato taxoboxes don't meet WP:SOURCE. (My earlier comment is a bit carelessly worded: my claim is, more precisely, that a majority of plant taxoboxes which involve a higher level classification, say subdivision upwards, are not sourced adequately.)
  • Chlorophyta. The taxobox supports the use of Chlorophyta as a division by two references. The first supports the use of the name by Pascher in 1914, so is irrelevant to my concern. The second is to Adl et al. (2005). I'm not entirely sure what this reference is meant to support; perhaps the use of "Pascher" as the authority. If it's meant to support the use of Chlorophyta as a division, it fails, because Adl et al. specifically say that theirs is a "nameless-rank" system and anyway they don't use anything like groups which correspond to the classes listed in the taxobox, which are sourced to AlgaeBase version 4.2. However, this version doesn't seem to be archived, and if you now go to AlgaeBase it has a somewhat different list of classes. Also it gives no authority for the use of Chlorophyta as a division. The article says that the division contains about 7,000 species, one reference for which is Encarta (a doubtful source to me). But if you look at Encarta, it uses "Chlorophyta" to mean "Viridiplantae" which is why it gives roughly the same number of species (actually 8,000 now) as AlgaeBase gives "Viridaeplantae" (7,001). The use of Chlorophyta as a division is not properly supported anywhere in the article's references.
  • Zygnematophyceae. There's no reference in the taxobox, which assigns the class to division Charophyta. The only reference in the article is to a source which explicitly uses Streptophyta, not Charophyta, as the name for the higher level taxon (although it doesn't specify its rank).
  • Streptophytina (redirected from Streptophyta). The taxobox says that it's unranked, which would be correct if used sensu Adl et al. (2005) but not if used sensu Lewis & McCourt (2004), which is the only one in the reference list, since they have it as a subdivision. The article is a muddle because it fails to explain the very different senses in which Streptophyta and Streptophytina are used in the literature and doesn't source anything properly.
I could go on; these are not specially chosen to make the point, but typical of articles on higher level plant taxa all over Wikipedia. If I wanted to be difficult, which I emphatically do not, I could add {{citation needed}} all over the articles or even remove parts of them in full accord with Wikipedia policies. As there is no overall higher-level consensus taxonomy, it is even more important that articles are fully and accurately sourced. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you're confused about the function of references in taxoboxes. They're for taxonomic publication only, not for supporting current use. The Pascher reference is (presumably) the first publication that elevated or redefined "Chlorophyta" to the modern sense. I woulnd't know the details without checking the source. I've no idea why the second reference is included in the Taxobox. The authority given for Zygnematophyceae on AlgaeBase is v.d.Hoek, but no Latin diagnosis is given there nor is unambiguous reference made to such a diagnosis, so it may be a nomen invalidum. This is true of several of the "charophyte" classes, so the problem is really that there aren't valid taxonomic names for that rank for most of the group. Thus, there isn't likely to be any consensus available, since there aren't even validly published names. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm commenting on the taxoboxes as they exist in articles, not how they should be. I understand and agree that there is a distinction between:
  • A reference supporting the authority for a name, which is what I expect to see in a taxobox, and is what I have always tried to add to taxoboxes for articles I've created or worked on. However, under the Code the authority applies to a name plus a rank; if the rank is changed, then an authority for the change is required. I don't think that editors have always understood this, so that a reference which is given for a name sometimes doesn't support the rank.
  • A reference supporting the placement of the taxon within another taxon. Personally I regret that taxoboxes do not provide a place/parameter for this, but they don't, so such references need to be given in the article; preferably, I would suggest, in a section clearly titled something like "Classification" or "Phylogeny" so it's easy to find. Tying together a phylogeny and a classification, as you've been doing, helps here, because the phylogeny supports the classification to some degree at least. Again, I've always tried to do this in articles I've worked on, but I entirely agree that it's sometimes difficult or even impossible to find good sources – this was actually how I started this discussion, namely with the question: does this project have a preferred and sourced classification?
My point is, and I can only repeat it, that the three articles I picked out above do not provide adequate sources for one or both of the name, at the rank/clade which it is used, and the placement of the taxon with that name in a higher rank/clade. (And, I think partly as a consequence, the bodies of two of the articles, Chlorophyta and Streptophytina, contain errors because they confuse different uses of the name.) If there aren't sources and there isn't a consensus among editors as to the higher level classification, how could we collectively resist a determined editor who challenged why this information appeared in Wikipedia?
Anyway, I think I've made my point at sufficient (probably excessive!) length. If there isn't a preferred sourced higher level classification, those of us working in areas which need a higher level classification have to continue muddling along. I guess I just don't like muddle. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation opinions[edit]

Hi. I'd be grateful if editors which an interest in disambiguation could take a look at Tristis and let me know their thoughts on its talk page. Thanks SP-KP (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lichen botanist[edit]

William Allport Leighton came my way; and it seems that the abbreviation Leight. in a number of places will be him. One for an expert, I feel. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:HighBeam[edit]

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colpomenia[edit]

Hello ! I created the stub Colpomenia (because of some interwiki bug with bots on fr:Colpomenia and fr:Colpomenia peregrina), but I am not familiar with the English Wikipedia. Can someone have a look at it? TED (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC) (from the French Wikipédia)[reply]

New plant, fungus, and algae micrographs uploaded[edit]

Yesterday I uploaded to Commons a bunch of micrographs that I made for a course I used to teach. They were taken back at the turn of the century, using what seemed at the time to be really high-resolution cameras. There are more to come, but not necessarily soon. I've listed only algae here; the full list is at WP:PLANTS.

  1. File:Polysiphonia tetraspores preserved.jpg - check usage
  2. File:Polysiphonia tetraspores WM2.jpg - check usage
  3. File:Polysiphonia tetraspores WM.jpg - check usage
  4. File:Polysiphonia spermatangia WM2.jpg - check usage
  5. File:Polysiphonia spermatangia WM.jpg - check usage
  6. File:Polysiphonia cystocarps preserved.jpg - check usage
  7. File:Polysiphonia cystocarp WM.jpg - check usage
  8. File:Pelagophycus San Clemente Island.jpg - check usage
  9. File:Oedogonium oogonium and antheridia.jpg - check usage
  10. File:Oedogonium gametangia.jpg - check usage
  11. File:Laminaria meiosporangia on blade LS.jpg - check usage
  12. File:Fucus receptacle preserved2.jpg - check usage
  13. File:Fucus receptacle preserved.jpg - check usage
  14. File:Fucus conceptacles XS3.jpg - check usage
  15. File:Fucus conceptacles XS1.jpg - check usage
  16. File:Fucus conceptacle XS3.jpg - check usage
  17. File:Fucus archegonia with antheridia.jpg - check usage
  18. File:Fucus antheridia with archegonia.jpg - check usage
  19. File:Ectocarpus unilocular structure2.jpg - check usage
  20. File:Ectocarpus unilocular structure.jpg - check usage
  21. File:Ectocarpus plurilocular structure.jpg - check usage
  22. File:Chara gametangia WM.jpg - check usage

Enjoy!--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-kingdom homonyms[edit]

Seeking comments about how to handle cases where a scientific name is homonymous across different nomenclatural codes. Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Inter-kingdom homonyms for discussion. Plantdrew (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archived a few threads[edit]

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Popular pages tool update[edit]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for article reviewers[edit]

Questions have been raised about the accuracy of science articles written by the prolific author Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs). The background can be read in a regrettably long and bad-tempered thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive835#Harassment. If you do not want to read the whole thing, start here. To her credit, Cwmhiraeth has initiated Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth. It would help to generate light, rather than more heat, and to decide whether there is a serious problem, if scientifically-qualified editors uninvolved in the row could review some of Cwmhiraeth's articles and comment at the editor review. JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Links to archived thread updated. JohnCD (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment classes and categories[edit]

Based on their assessment, WikiProject Algae articles are treated as a category within WikiProject Plants articles. However, up to now, the way that WikiProject Algae articles were categorized by assessment was different from the way that WikiProject Plants articles are categorized, which caused oddities in the WikiProject Plants categories. In particular there was a large category of "Class-NA" Algae articles because the categories for Template-Class, Redirect-Class, Project-Class, etc. weren't being populated – editors were classing pages as template, redirect, project, etc., but the system which automatically categorizes pages as a result of such assessments was ignoring them.

I've now altered the categorization of WikiProject Algae assessments to match more closely that of WikiProject Plants assessments. You can see the result at Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae#Assessments where pages previously put into "Class-NA" are now distributed among the classes Category to Template. Should anyone have any strong reasoned objections, the change can be undone, but would then continue to cause problems for the much larger WikiProject Plants assessment categories. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live![edit]

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mesophelles[edit]

Dear algae experts: Is this old AfC submission something that should be kept and improved instead of being delete as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to me that there's much worth keeping in that AfC. Go ahead and delete it. Plantdrew (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should be completely deleted ASAP. MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is being considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mesophelles. Please comment. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pages that look like articles, but ...[edit]

I've come across a number of pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae/Articles/Capea which look like articles and are categorized as articles, but are in Wikipedia namespace. Are these intended to be in the article namespace ? Pinging Smith609. If there's no response to this query I'll comment out the category tags and/or propose deletion of these pages (or turn into redirects). DexDor (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but it seems the article was created by a bot by the user, then the articles created were supposed to be deleted after the bot was blocked. [5] Then click on bot talk page to find link to the articles being deleted. If the articles were to be deleted and some were missed, then they should not be changed into articles. Do the other articles have the same history? MicroPaLeo (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons vary for the moving of these entries, but the bot that created all these pages did so from raw data housed at AlgaeBase, without any human inspection or supervision. We discovered the problem a number of years ago over at WP:PLANTS, and discussed it at that time. Some of the AlgaeBase entries turned out to be erroneous (to varying degrees), dulpicates, or to have classification problems, or a combination of these and other problems. Many of the articles were deleted, but some were simply moved out of the main namespace. The Capea article no longer has a corresponding entry at AlgaeBase, and probably ought to be deleted since it now has no source for its information, which can be seen to be a mess if you look at the TaxoBox. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the taxoboxes seem to go like that, assert it is not something as we use it while declaring it is that very thing. Should the rest be deleted or checked? Is there some way to find them all? MicroPaLeo (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC) PS I searched Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae/Articles and found a lot more. MicroPaLeo (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now at MFD - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae/Articles/Capea. DexDor (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Tilden[edit]

Articles for Josephine Tilden being constructed - early algologist Victuallers (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diaresis in article titles[edit]

There's a discussion about whether to include diareses in scientific names used as article titles here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Diaereses in article titles. An algae article prompted the discussion, and Algaebase uses diareses, so if anybody is watching this page who has an opinion on this matter, please contribute to the discussion over at WikiProject Plants. Plantdrew (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BioRxiv support in citations[edit]

Main page: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1 § BioRxiv_support

This project's feedback would be appreciated in this discussion, as this could greatly (and positively) affect biological citations! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox "Kingdom" Chromalveolata --> SAR supergroup[edit]

Chromalveolata was proposed (in Adl et al, 2005) as a "tentative" response to the hypothesis of a onetime endosymbiotic engulfment of red algae in an organism ancestral to stramenopiles, haptophytes, cryptophytes and alveolates. Since cryptists are now known to group with Archaeplastids, Chromalveolata itself is likely not monophyletic (Burki et al, 2016). The chromalveolate hypothesis itself is still under debate (and may yet be vindicated), but the formal taxon Chromalveolata has been dropped from the revised classification proposed in Adl et al, 2012. It is not used by Cavalier-Smith, either. Since neither supporters nor opponents of the chromalveolate hypothesis are now using the formal taxon, it makes little sense to keep it in Wikipedia's taxoboxes.

Chromalveolata was erected as an unranked node-based (phylogenetic) group, and never proposed as a kingdom, but about seven years ago Wikipedia editors invested heavily in "Kingdom Chromalveolata", inserting it into hundreds of templates. A lot of these have been updated, recently, replacing Chromalveolata with the SAR supergroup (Adl et al, 2012), a more comprehensive group that is also used (under the name Harosa) by Cavalier-Smith and his collaborators. Still, dozens, if not hundreds, of taxoboxes retain the older taxon. I have AWB privileges, and can use that tool to update the remaining taxoboxes, but thought I should check here, first, to make sure that nobody objects. I would replace regnum = [[Chromalveolata]] with unranked_regnum = [[SAR supergroup|Sar]]. This will be rendered on the page as: (unranked): Sar . Deuterostome  (Talk) 21:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me, same as for your requests about Amoebozoa and Excavata. SAR isn't supported by taxobox color; might be good to modify taxobox color to support SAR so we don't need to have as many color values hard coded? Plantdrew (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea. I'll put in a request at Template talk:Taxobox colour. Deuterostome  (Talk) 00:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've converted the remaining taxoboxes containing Chromalveolata (hundreds of them!). I tried hard not to introduce new problems, but might have bungled a few of the AWB edits. Since Peter coxhead was kind enough to add SAR to Template:Taxobox colour, we can now eliminate the hard-coded "greenyellow" colour tags in the taxoboxes (the SAR/Chromalveota colour is not identical). I've done a bunch of those, and I'll get to the rest as time permits.
Since cryptists have been found to group within Archaeplastida, I shifted those taxa to incertae sedis. I also placed Haptista (centrohelids + haptophytes) in incertae sedis, for now. Their place on the tree is known (they're a sister clade to SAR) but they haven't been formally classified below Diaphoretickes(except by Cavalier-Smith, whose Hacrobia is now in doubt).  Deuterostome  (Talk) 16:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Deuterostome: the taxobox colour requires the actual name to be "SAR" or "Sar", not "SAR supergroup" (it can be wikilinked, like [[SAR supergroup|Sar]]). This is in line with the usual view that a "rank" word, like "supergroup" or "clade", isn't included in the taxon name in the taxobox. Thus if a researcher set up the "Junkia clade" we would put |clade=Junkia in the taxobox, not |clade=Junkia clade. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I bumped into one of those errors this morning, but don't know how many times I used the wrong name. I'll see if I can bring up a list of the bad entries.  Deuterostome  (Talk) 16:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter coxhead:OK, I just did a search on [[SAR supergroup]] (without SAR or Sar after the pipe/vertical bar), and in some 500 articles that came up, there were only three bad ones (probably from articles I cleaned up manually, inside AWB). I see you've fixed seven or eight of them, too. I don't think I automated that error (!), but let me know if I did and I'll find a way to fix it. Deuterostome  (Talk) 17:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Deuterostome: normally they would end up in Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color if there was a problem, so I think they should all be ok.
More generally, I have a draft version of {{Taxobox}} at {{Taxobox/sandbox}} that fixes some problems that have been forcing editors to hardcode colours. As an example, go to Streptobacillus, remove |color=lightgrey, and press Preview – you get the error colour. Now change "Taxobox" to "Taxobox/sandbox" and press Preview – it works. Cancel the edit for now of course! When this version is deployed, it should be possible to remove almost all hardcoding of taxobox colour – or so I hope! Peter coxhead (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages[edit]

Greetings WikiProject Algae/Archive 1 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiJournal of Science promotion[edit]

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.[1][2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia.

Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas:

Editors

  • See submissions through external academic peer review
  • Format accepted articles
  • Promote the journal

Authors

  • Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
  • Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review)
  • Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

  1. ^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M (2017). "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001.
  2. ^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.


T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Popular pages report[edit]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae/Archive 1/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Algae.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Algae, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on recommending usage of automatic taxoboxes[edit]

There is an RfC regarding recommending usage of automatic taxoboxes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comments: Should the automatic taxobox system be the current recommended practice?. Inviting anybody who watches this page to contribute their thoughts to that thread.

WikiProject Algae is currently using automatic taxoboxes in 52.9% of project tagged articles that have any form of taxobox. Plantdrew (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc on new classification scheme[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: new classification scheme for eukaryotes, which asks for comments on how we should deal with a proposed new classification system that has widespread ramifications across the tree of life. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates[edit]

Input sought At Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system/Archive 1#Fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates I've suggested some alternative ways of fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates. They could make it easier to deal with the problem of inconsistent classification systems, e.g. the ones used for birds and dinosaurs, or the ones used for mammals and dinosaurs. Be warned that it's a long post, but it very much needs input, particularly from "old hands" at using the automated taxobox system. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect redirects[edit]

The user User:Galactikapedia has been creating countless redirects from species to the corresponding genus, such as Porphyra guangdongensis and Erythrotrichia vexillaris (which redirect to the original pages, Porphyra and Erythrotrichia respectively). He's done the same thing on many other plant and animal pages as far back as 2017 (see Ephemera annandalei). In my opinion these redirects should be deleted and this contributor should be prevented from doing more damage. --Polinizador (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is "incorrect" about them? That's the whole point of templates like {{R taxon with possibilities}}. I've done the same a number of times. An article refers to Porphyra guangdongensis, but there is no article there. You could leave a redlink. Alternately, you could make it a redirect until a proper article is written, and then atleast the reader knows roughly what kind of species is being discussed in the original article. Either way is better than piping the link (e.g. Porphyra guangdongensis) and letting someone else discover it years after the article was written and correct the link. --Nessie (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they're using the generic {{R with possibilities}}, which puts them in a category with 53k entries. And they created more than 5000 taxon redirects which is a significant jump over the ~1700 redirects now using one of the taxon with possibilities templates. Plantdrew (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And they've created redirects for families such as Enteridiidae. Redirects for species may be appropriate in some cases (e.g. paleontology), but higher taxa should stay as red-links until proper articles are created. Plantdrew (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subscribe to new Tree of Life Newsletter![edit]

"I've never heard so much about crinoids!"

Despite the many Wikipedians who edit content related to organisms/species, there hasn't been a Tree of Life Newsletter...until now! If you would like regular deliveries of said newsletter, please add your name to the subscribers list. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A possible Science/STEM User Group[edit]

There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 03:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptomonads[edit]

There's a move discussion that could use some more voices Talk:Cryptomonad#Requested move 25 May 2019 --Nessie (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool[edit]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest[edit]

After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. --Nessie (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment, Statistics section - updated[edit]

Greetings - For Algae WP statistics, I added progression, pie chart, rainbow & wikilinks "Quality operations" and "Popular pages". JoeNMLC (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Templates to be created[edit]

  • none currently

Most-viewed start article within this Wikiproject[edit]

Red tide 21,794 726--Coin945 (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afd Anne_Catherine_Hof_Blinks[edit]

(copied from WT:PLANTS, since her field seems to have been marine algae)

This AfD may be of interest Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anne_Catherine_Hof_Blinks which is under discussion for deletion. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AlgaeBase templates[edit]

AlgaeBase seems to have changed the way in which URLs are set up to link to some taxa, which is causing problems with the AlgaeBase templates that generate citations.

As far as I can tell, a URL of the form https://www.algaebase.org/browse/taxonomy/?id=#..., where the "#" is part of the URL and ... represents an integer ID, always works for genera and higher. However the integer ID is different when using a different form of URL for genera. Thus:

  1. https://www.algaebase.org/browse/taxonomy/?id=#6873 arrives at one version of the entry for the genus Closterium (the "#" must now be included)
  2. https://www.algaebase.org/search/genus/detail/?genus_id=43525 also arrives at the genus Closterium, but a different version of the entry

It's not clear to me how best to set up {{AlgaeBase genus}}. As of now, {{AlgaeBase genus}} uses URLs of type (1) above, i.e. the same as {{AlgaeBase taxon}}, but some existing uses in articles seem to use an ID based on a URL of type (2) above. On the other hand, {{AlgaeBase species}} uses URLs of type (2) above [with "species" instead of "genus"].

Any change to the kind of URL used by {{AlgaeBase genus}} (or {{AlgaeBase species}}) will cause some existing uses to break, given that (1) and (2) use different IDs (sigh!). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: some old uses of the AlgaeBase templates use quite different IDs which no longer work, e.g. at Erythropsidinium, there's {{AlgaeBase genus|name=Erythropsidinium|id=U20e9cee6ef408858}}. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have they changed it recently? I'm not so sure. My understanding is they effectively have three id parameters:
  1. the id for the taxonomy browser page (of higher taxa and genera). This page actually uses the number after the anchor (#) rather than the id parameter, as you can access the page using an invented parameter name, e.g. https://www.algaebase.org/browse/taxonomy/?my-nonsense-id=#4937.
  2. genus_id for the genus information page
  3. species_id for species information page
The id used with the anchor is effectively the taxon-id, which for a genus takes you to the taxon browser for the genus, while genus_id takes you to the detailed information page for the genus. Note the info icon on the browser page takes you to the detailed information page, which I think means both IDs are current. Not sure why they use different numbers.
The solution for the templates is that {{AlgaeBase genus}} and {{AlgaeBase species}} should use the id from the respective genus_id and species_id parameters, while {{AlgaeBase taxon}} should use the anchor ID. If you want the browser page for the genus, use the #id with {{AlgaeBase taxon}}.
What to do about current uses using the wrong parameter is another matter. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jts1882: I think there have definitely been changes; previous versions of the 'taxon' template didn't include the "#", but presumably still worked. What I'm not sure about is why Plantdrew changed {{AlgaeBase genus}} in this edit from my type (2) URL to my type (1) URL..
I agree that {{AlgaeBase genus}} should go back to my type (2) URL, but then all existing 113 transclusions will need to be checked. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about the # being new. It wasn't needed on 10 May 2020. The two different ids for the browse and search urls existed at that time. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's even more complicated than I thought, since these two lead to the same entry:
Although some occurrences of alphanumeric values of species_id currently present in articles don't work (at least now). Peter coxhead (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All three of the old alphanumeric ids in this search for {{AlgaeBase species}} work. The genus template doesn't work as it adds the # and uses a taxon browser URL, but does if you edit the url and leave the alphanumeric id (e.g. for Volvox). Seems they set up the redirects to the new ids for genus and species details.
They don't work for {{AlgaeBase taxon}}, but I can only find two results that can be easily changed (I've left them for now for demonstration purposes). —  Jts1882 | talk  17:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well as no-one else has commented, and we agree, I will change {{AlgaeBase genus}} back to use the genus specific type of URL, and check all the transclusions. Note that you can use {{AlgaeBase taxon}} for a genus (italicizing the name parameter) if for some reason you want to link to the taxonomy browser version of the entry rather than the full version. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to help with the checking, these remain. So far I would say that about a third are correct with the genus specific form of URL, i.e. would have been wrong before.

List deleted. All checked and fixed.

Peter coxhead (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All checked. It seems the external links are mostly correct and a bunch of stubs have the wrong ID (usually with "See the NCBI webpage" type reference. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did two, and tried to check them off the list, and the list is gone! 😮 Good work guys --awkwafaba (📥) 13:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I went off for lunch and came back to find all the work done! Peter coxhead (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomic issues in AlgaeBase[edit]

I've been working on converting articles with manual taxoboxes for algae into automated ones, checking the classification in the manual taxobox against AlgaeBase.

AlgaeBase has some issues with cases where the family doesn't include the type genus or the genus doesn't include the type species. Right now, one example is Micractiniaceae (Guiry, M.D.; Guiry, G.M., "Micractiniaceae", AlgaeBase, World-wide electronic publication, National University of Ireland, Galway) which doesn't include Micractinium which is placed in Chlorellaceae (Guiry, M.D.; Guiry, G.M., "Micractinium", AlgaeBase, World-wide electronic publication, National University of Ireland, Galway). This is (of course) unacceptable under the ICNafp. Just to note that I've had some positive e-mail correspondence with Michael Guiry of AlgaeBase, who notes that the problem is that authors move type taxa without fixing the "orphans" they leave. He will try to sort the cases I've found, but if anyone comes across such issues, I do encourage you to contact AlgaeBase. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining cases[edit]

I'm aware of three remaining examples in AlgaeBase of the type genus not being in the family (one has been fixed). I've listed them here so editors can check from time to time whether the situation has changed.

Peter coxhead (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources[edit]

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ulva[edit]

See WP:Plants#Ulva Lavateraguy (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Algae/Archive_1&oldid=1210782791"