Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Algae

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Yogsothoth (algal genus)

What do you folks make of this Draft:Yogsothoth (algal genus), which I've come across doing AfC reviewing. It's referenced almost entirely by a single source, which is hardly ideal, of course. Any thoughts welcome! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing:, well, it is not an algal genus (it's not photosynthetic, and the name is registered in ZooBank which indicates it would be considered an animal in a two kingdom system). Recently described protists are unlikely to have many sources discussing them aside from the original description. Plantdrew (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Plantdrew: well that's worrying, if it's not even what it claims to be.

Rightly or wrongly, I don't usually look for GNG notability with species etc., I tend to assume they are 'inherently' notable, as long as the referencing is there, so that it's not a joke/hoax or similar. But a single source seems too risky IMO, so unless you or anyone else in the know thinks I ought to accept it, I think I'll decline it and suggest the author finds at least one other credible source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing:, there are some other sources out there: doi:10.1139/cjz-2022-0114 (paywalled for me, but from the title, I assume Yogsothoth has been found in Canada), doi:10.1111/jeu.12992 (paywalled, but accessible through The Wikipedia Library, mentions Yogsothoth in passing in a discussion of centrohelid evolutionary relationships), and doi:10.1111/jeu.12737 (paywalled, but accessible through The Wikipedia Library, describes a new genus of Yogsothothidae and compares it to Yogsothoth).

Since other researchers are recognizing the genus, I think you could accept the article (but use (protist) as the disambiguator, not (algal genus)). Plantdrew (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: roger wilco! Many thanks! :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

What replaced Siphonales?

I have a source from 1999 that I am using in an article that speaks of "benthic green algae in the order Siphonales". I can find Siphonales in other sources (all of which seem to be from earlier than 1999), but nothing in WP. I presume that the taxons in Siphonales have been reclassified, but I would like to know what current taxons include the taxons that were formerly in Siphonales, so that I can link to the appropriate articles. Donald Albury 16:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a synonym of Bryopsidales according to IRMNG (Catalogue of Life and GBIF also show Siphonales as a synonym of Bryopsidales; their records are ultimately based on IRMNG).

We would need to know all of the taxa that were formerly included in Siphonales in order to determine where they are currently placed. It is a possibility that all subtaxa of Siphonales are currently included in Bryopsidales, but it is also possible that only some of the subtaxa are included in Bryopsidales, and other subtaxa are included elsewhere.

If your source lists some subtaxa, link those individually. If not, I think the best course of action is to create a redirect for Siphonales to Bryopsidales, and link to the redirect. Plantdrew (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't looked far enough into the source. It names Caulerpa, Udotea, Penicillus, Codium, and Halimeda, which all are indeed in Bryopsidales. Thanks for the pointer. Donald Albury 19:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Lichens

Hi there! We at the tiny lichen task force are wondering if you'd like us to start adding the WikiProject Algae banner to the various lichen articles. After all, the alga is as important to the organism as the fungus is! Please let us know... MeegsC (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I would say no; photobionts should have algae and lichen banners, but mycobionts should just have the lichen banner. The lichen task force seems to be more active than WikiProject Algae ever was (even it's mostly just you and Esculenta). Plantdrew (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hypoxia (environmental)#Requested move 10 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hypoxia (environmental)#Requested move 10 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 02:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)