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)

Using the terminology "algae" for cyanobacteria

Hi all! New to the wiki editing and happy to see there's a WikiProject for Algae (even if it's not super active :P). I've been randomly going through pages to add more info and update pages under this project, and I've run across a couple of pages saying that cyanobacteria are not "algae" (examples below), which if I read in the academic world I inhabit, I'd call out as flatly wrong. I consider algae to be "photosynthetic things that aren't plants", including cyanobacteria. And algae is a descriptive and not taxonomic grouping. I've just run across a couple of pages that have sentences implying differently. Generally, it seems to be trying to say "used to be thought as eukaryotic algae, but in fact, they are bacteria".

Based on note 1 on the Cyanobacteria page, this seems to just be a botanical viewpoint. As a researcher in a primarily cyanobacterial lab, I'd be shocked if someone came up to tell me cyanobacteria aren't algae.

From Arthrospira: "These photosynthetic organisms were first considered to be algae, a very large and diverse group of eukaryotic organisms, until 1962 when they were reclassified as prokaryotes and named Cyanobacteria."

From Spirulina: "Spirulina is a genus of cyanobacteria. It is not classed as algae, despite the common name of cyanobacteria being blue-green algae." Cyanochic (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The ICNafp is absolutely clear: "The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants is the set of rules and recommendations that govern the scientific naming of all organisms traditionally treated as algae, fungi, or plants, whether fossil or non-fossil, including blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria) ..." So although it can be said that some sources treat the term algae more restrictively, an impeccable source includes cyanobacteria in algae and unqualified assertions that they are not are clearly not acceptable as per WP:NPOV. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I've qualified the note on botanists with "some botanists" and added a citation needed. It's questionable whether algae are "scientific classified as eukaryotes" as algae is not a scientific classification. Perhaps that statmeent and the note should be replaced with a simple statement along the lines that "unlike other algae, blue-green algae are prokaryotes rather than eukaryotes". As to the Arthrospira statement, the blue green algae were described long the concept of prokaryote-eukaryote (or protists for that matter) so they weren't reclassified as prokaryotes, they were always classified as prokaryotes once the concept arose. The Algae article asserting that algae are eukaryotes also needs fixing. These edits are examples of editors trying to portray how things are as what they think they should be.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I consider cyanobacteria to qualify as algae ("photosynthetic things that aren't plants"). Eukaryotic groups that aren't exclusively photosynthetic (e.g. Euglena, dinoflagellates) seem to me to be more of a challenge for defining "algae" than restricting "algae" to eukaryotes and thus excluding cyanobacteria. Plantdrew (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for the input! My definition seems to be exactly the same as yours. And thank you @Jts1882 for pointing out the Algae article also needs fixing and @Peter coxhead for the ICNafp reference too.

I might start going through and fixing these pages (probably using ICNafp as the direct reference). Would it be worth pointing to this discussion as well in the change notes? Cyanochic (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Goodness, I just looked at Algae and the infobox is already a bit overwhelming. I may need some coffee before I consider tackling that one Cyanochic (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)