Talk:Edible lichen

not mosses

none of these examples are mosses. all three are lichens.

• Yes, you're right. That's why I started a new article. Lichen in the title should be capitalized, but I don't know how to do it.--NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

On stating that Edible Lichens are lichens that are edible

It is definitely a constructive addition. Aside from it being a true fact, it also does two things. Namely:

• One, it clears up what exactly the article is about, i.e. lichen that is edible (as opposed to something else which might go by that same name).
• Two, it prevents the article from being nothing more than a list of edible lichens, which it currently is. (right now it would be more appropriate to make a list called "list_of_edible_lichen" or something)

Therefore I find the addition of such a phrase to be completely appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WvittiM (talk • contribs) 17:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with your arguments. Firstly, your addition does not clear up anything, as there were never any ambiguity regarding "Edible Lichen" as it is completely self explainatory. And regarding your second argument, it does not contribute to the article being more than a list of edible lichens. Brakebusk (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Given that there is, to my knowledge, no lichen called "Edible lichen" that is not also edible, I think the citation requirement is oodles of silly. Gave me a good laugh, at least. What next? Are we going to need citations to claim that words are words? Xander T. (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Lichens eaten by non-humans

Lichens are important, or the main diet of animals such as reindeer, snails and the black-and-white snub-nosed monkey (Rhinopithecus bieti). I propose adding a short section about these lichens, rather than just having links in a list. MerielGJones (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)