User talk:Esculenta

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ramalina peruviana you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Auckland Museum Wiki-Award
		Congrats Esculenta! You've received the Auckland Museum Wiki-Award for creating articles on four of the most commonly identified lichen species in the Auckland Region (Baeomyces heteromorphus, Enterographa bella, Ramalina celastri and Ramalina peruviana). --Prosperosity (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have a (long) to-do list of nice/interesting lichen photographs on Commons that don't have Wikipedia articles, and felt like working on some NZ species recently. There's more where that came from on the backburner ... Esculenta (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! If you're ever keen to do more NZ or cosmopolitan species, I've made a list of the lichens of the Auckland Region that need pages (i.e. the lichens people identified the most on iNaturalist). --Prosperosity (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you today for Teloschistaceae, introduced: "Dive into the colourful world of the Teloschistaceae, the 3rd-largest family of lichen-forming fungi with about 1000 species and more than 100 genera. I think the article is an up-to-date summary – a curated and comprehensive compendium – of the relevant literature space, and, imho, the best single source of information about this topic either online or in print."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda! Esculenta (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

more music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my favorite fungus person. :) Recently a new article was accepted from the realm of the drafts... Basidiobolus haptosporus needs some love and attention. We previously only had one other article for that genus, the type species, and the genus was redirected to the type. I've made a primitive little genus stub at Basidiobolus that could also use your eyeballs. Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UtherSRG! I had seen that new article, but was wondering why Index Fungorum synonymizes it with Basidiobolus ranarum ... will dig into the literature soonish and see what I can find out. Esculenta (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the genus article. I pulled all of the species from MycoBank. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MycoBank lists all species that have ever been placed in the genus, but does not indicate which of those are currently accepted. Species Fungorum is a good place to search for "accepted" species (although occasionally they are out of date). They suggest that a few species have been synonymized with Basidiobolus ranarum ... but there may be a recent taxonomic update that "overrules" this. More later. Esculenta (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ramalina peruviana you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ramalina peruviana and Talk:Ramalina peruviana/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ramalina peruviana you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ramalina peruviana for comments about the article, and Talk:Ramalina peruviana/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank you for your many contributions to fungi articles :) Have a great week! Зэгс ус (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, fellow fungus fan. Esculenta (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove it? It's standard to include when its available. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Citation bot#Semantic scholar links continue to mostly consist of spam for the story. Esculenta (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah.... - UtherSRG (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. When removing those links, please ref that link. That would have prevented me from reverting. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Will do now from now on. Esculenta (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We follow the standards set in the industry for authority statements. For animals, the year is included. For fungus, it is not. You should know this. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"We follow the standards set in the industry for authority statements" source? Have you tried looking at every Fungus-related GA and FAC? Those are the standards I follow. Esculenta (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to a MOS that say we should do that? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right after you point to a MOS that says we needs to include the authority in the taxobox exactly according to ICNafp rules. Esculenta (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the instructions. It shows examples for animals, plants, and bacteria. All are using the standards set by their standards organizations. Why would fungus be different? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see where it says to not include the date of publication (a useful piece of data). Esculenta (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Spot test (lichen) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hydropunctaria amphibia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Melanohalea you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lecideaceae you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Wolverine XI -- Wolverine XI (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you did anything wrong with the categories at Staurospora and Staurospora purpurissata. I do think the "species described in year" and "taxa named by" category names are imprecise. WikiProject Plants has had discussions about how to handle "species described in year", settling on something that isn't necessarily useful to taxonomists, but aligns with a not especially technical definition of "described". And the year category on Staurospora purpurissata follows that.

"Taxa described in year" categories developed after the "species described in year" categories. I don't think "taxa described in year" categories have really been discussed aside from this recent thread: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Archive_16#Fossil_X_described_in_2023. Leaving aside how WikiProject Plants has decided to define "described", I think it's obvious that the "taxa described in year" categories should hold taxa higher than species (or species if no subcategory for species/year exists yet, but as the species categories generally came first I don't expect there will be many cases where a "taxa described" category exists without a "species described" subcategory). Putting Stauraspora in "Taxa described in 2018" is fine.

"Taxa described in year" is clearly about taxa, not names. "Species described in year" isn't clearly about taxa, but the guidance for plants treats the entities being categorized as taxa, not just names.

There haven't been discussions that I am aware of about how to deal with "taxa named by" categories when there is a subsequent combination with a combining authority (or a situation where a replacement name is required). Muscari racemosum is the example the plants guidance gives for a replacement name, and it is currently in categories for both Linnaeus and Miller. Titling the categories as "taxa named by" unfortunately obliterate the distinction between a taxon and a name.

My inclination would be to put Arthonia purpurissata in the named by William Nylander category, and not Staurospora purpurissata. But I can't say you've done anything against recommendations there. As far as I'm aware no recommendations exist for this case, but that does mean that different editors adding "taxa named by" categories may doing so in an inconsistent way. Plantdrew (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get what you mean by the species/taxon problem. At times I wish Wikipedia would obliterate the entire category system and implement "tags", which would make searching for articles a lot easier. In the meantime, do you think there is a fix to the entire setup of this categorization scheme? Is it worthwhile workshopping a permanent solution for future Wikipedia categorizers? The Muscari racemosum example is interesting, although the article says nothing relevant about its naming. Surely it can't be correct that both the Linnaeus and Miller "named by" categories are there? Looking further at the POWO link (searching for "Muscari racemosum"), the first search result is "Muscari racemosum (L.) Medik.", which is a synonym of Muscari neglectum; the second search result is "Muscari racemosum Mill.", which is apparently a synonym of Muscarimia muscari. What gives here? Esculenta (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish for tags as well.

I think it would be worth having a discussion about the named by categories. I don't think that would result in any permanent solution, but at least we could try to establish whether the categories belong on basionyms/original combinations or subsequent combinations.

Muscari racemosum was originally named by Linnaeus as Hyacinthus muscari. It was later transferred to the genus Muscari. The ICNafp doesn't allow tautonyms, so new epithet was needed. Miller provided the replacement epithet racemosum. I don't think it should be in categories for both Linnaeus and Miller, but am not sure which category it should have. POWO now treats it as Muscarimia muscari (going back to the epithet established by Linnaeus, as it is no longer tautonymous). A new example of a replacement name is needed for Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories, but any such example is likely to have the issue of being a taxon named by different people. Plantdrew (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hydropunctaria amphibia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hydropunctaria amphibia for comments about the article, and Talk:Hydropunctaria amphibia/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Spot test (lichen) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Spot test (lichen) for comments about the article, and Talk:Spot test (lichen)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Melanohalea you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Melanohalea for comments about the article, and Talk:Melanohalea/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gustaf Einar Du Rietz you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gustaf Einar Du Rietz you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gustaf Einar Du Rietz for comments about the article, and Talk:Gustaf Einar Du Rietz/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lecideaceae you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lecideaceae for comments about the article, and Talk:Lecideaceae/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Wolverine XI -- Wolverine XI (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You marked the banner as "lichen=yes" but it's not a lichen. Do the Task Force include lichenicolous species? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we also include fungi that eat lichens in the task force. Esculenta (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that! - UtherSRG (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Confluentic acid you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reconrabbit -- Reconrabbit (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Vanderwaltia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 19 § Vanderwaltia until a consensus is reached. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Allocalicium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Allocalicium you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Allocalicium and Talk:Allocalicium/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Allocalicium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Allocalicium for comments about the article, and Talk:Allocalicium/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Confluentic acid you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Confluentic acid for comments about the article, and Talk:Confluentic acid/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reconrabbit -- Reconrabbit (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Multiclavula mucida you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Multiclavula mucida you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Multiclavula mucida for comments about the article, and Talk:Multiclavula mucida/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The April issue of the lichen task force newsletter is available here. Delivered by MeegsC (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article IndExs - Index of Exsiccatae is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IndExs - Index of Exsiccatae until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Xylopsora canopeorum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Xylopsora canopeorum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Xylopsora canopeorum for comments about the article, and Talk:Xylopsora canopeorum/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]