User talk:Esculenta

I just finished reading the lead, and I must say, you have done well! I look forward to reading the entire article. It's hard to believe we didn't have one already! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was also surprised that we didn't have an article on this. I general, I think it would benefit the encyclopedia to have more articles on herbaria. Esculenta (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has led me to add another side project to my already massive to-do list, thanks :) ... ChatGPT has assured me that these are the ten most notable herbaria with sufficient existing literature to create substantial articles. Esculenta (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. Umm, you're welcome?

Some of these might be embedded within the articles of their parent institutions.

These may help (or hurt): List of herbaria, List of herbaria in Europe, List of herbaria in Oceania, List of herbaria in North America, and List of herbaria in Turkey.

I'd like to see an article on TORCH – The Texas Oklahoma Regional Consortium of Herbaria. It has what I have found to be a very useful data portal. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Linnaean Herbarium 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) 13:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Linnaean Herbarium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Linnaean Herbarium for comments about the article, and Talk:Linnaean Herbarium/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) 06:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kew Herbarium 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) 14:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kew Herbarium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kew Herbarium for comments about the article, and Talk:Kew Herbarium/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) 21:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Excellent work on Drepanolejeunea senticosa, I hope you don't mind the formatting changes I've made. It's great to see another person interested in liverworts! I just wanted to reach out to discuss the collection date for the D. senticosa type specimen - you had it listed in the article as 1860, however, on reading Bischler's description I could find no mention of when the type was collected (she lists it as s.d., "without date"). I've removed it for now, but if you can remember where you found 1860 mentioned please feel free to put it back. Thanks for your hard work, looking forward to reading the other articles you've expanded :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I found the source I got that date from and added it back. I'm mostly a lichen person, but have recently decided I should learn more about the other cryptogams that are lurking when I'm looking for lichens. I'll be switching over to peat mosses for the next batch of plant stub expansions. Esculenta (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Graphis neeladriensis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only based on predatory publishers, not reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Plantae Barnstar
		For all your excellent bryophyte work! I especially love what you've done with Trichocolea tomentella - such a common and widespread species certainly deserves a detailed article and you did a fantastic job expanding it. Reviewing your articles for WP:PLANTSSTS has been a lot of fun :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk

Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Given there are relatively few liverwort articles on Wikipedia compared to the overall 60,000+ plant stubs, I think this STS drive will have a particularly positive impact on this corner of Plantae. I think you'll also enjoy seeing the peat moss articles when you get to them - it's remarkable how stubby they were before, especially given the extensive literature available on them. Esculenta (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very much looking forward to those! I'm not particularly familiar with Sphagnum (I've only encountered it in the wild once and never managed to key it out to species) so I'm excited to learn :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Graphis neeladriensis 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/Graphis neeladriensis 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.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Brodoa oroarctica 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 Just-a-can-of-beans -- Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Brodoa oroarctica you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Brodoa oroarctica for comments about the article, and Talk:Brodoa oroarctica/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 Just-a-can-of-beans -- Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Esculenta. Wondering about Antarctolichenia. It doesn't appear to be a true lichen, so I'm wondering about its inclusion in the lichen genera category. Wouldn't it be better to have it under the WP:LICHEN purview, but not in the lichen genera category? MeegsC (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meegs, long time ... you are correct about Antarctolichenia, and I've fixed my hasty miscategorisation. Esculenta (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Esculenta. I know your expertise lies in lichen etc. and that you just did me a big favor by being so patient with your GA review. However, I'm hoping to lean on your general expertise with taxonomic articles by asking a question about improving O. catharus. It was still incomplete after the review (including things you noted), and it's conspicuously missing information about the digestive system. The digestive system doesn't stand out much (if at all) from other decapods, and I was wondering if it's seen as redundant to include this sort of thing (taken as an extreme example, imagine writing an article about a species of crab and describing how because they're animals, they consume organic matter, have muscles, have bilateral symmetry as part of Bilateria, etc.). The digestive system is a crucial part of the internal anatomy, and a general reader (myself included) may not be familiar, but I'm afraid anything I say there could be copied almost verbatim to decapod anatomy. There is some (not a lot) of mention of the foregut in literature, but any paragraph only talking about the foregut seems itself incomplete. Meanwhile, any paragraph also talking about the midgut and hindgut would rely heavily on general decapod literature. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For articles about individual species, I generally recommend including anatomical information when either:

• The species shows variations or unique features compared to related taxa
• The feature is directly relevant to understanding other aspects of the species (behavior, ecology, etc.)
• The info comes from specific studies of that species, even if the findings align with general patterns

In the case of O. catharus's digestive system, I would suggest:

• Including foregut details from literature specific to this species
• Mentioning any digestive adaptations relevant to its diet/feeding behavior
• Briefly noting general decapod digestive anatomy only where needed for context
• Avoiding lengthy descriptions of standard decapod features

The goal is to focus on what makes this species interesting or distinctive while providing enough context for general readers to understand it. You've done this well in other sections – for example, how you've handled the circulatory system by focusing on specific features like ventilatory flow reversal and thermal responses.

If the digestive system is truly standard for decapods and lacks species-specific studies, it's perfectly reasonable to omit it or cover it very briefly. The article is already comprehensive in its coverage of the species' biology. Esculenta (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment on sentence in the lede: Birches aren't conifers! The sentence "Tuckermannopsis ciliaris is widely distributed across North America and the Old World, found on coniferous trees such as pines and birches, with varying frequencies..." reads as if they are. I'd replace with either "found on birches and coniferous trees such as pines" or "found on coniferous trees such as pines and deciduous trees including birches". Or some such! ;) MeegsC (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops ... thanks for the heads up! Fixed. Esculenta (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tuckermannopsis ciliaris 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 Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Parmelia sulcata 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) 14:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tuckermannopsis ciliaris 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:Tuckermannopsis ciliaris and Talk:Tuckermannopsis ciliaris/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Parmelia sulcata you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Parmelia sulcata for comments about the article, and Talk:Parmelia sulcata/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) 03:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tuckermannopsis ciliaris you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tuckermannopsis ciliaris for comments about the article, and Talk:Tuckermannopsis ciliaris/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 Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]