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)
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) |
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)
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)
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
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)
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)
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)
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) |
Why remove it? It's standard to include when its available. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The April issue of the lichen task force newsletter is available here. Delivered by MeegsC ( talk) 21:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This could use your help... - UtherSRG (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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) |
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)
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)
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
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)
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)
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)
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) |
Why remove it? It's standard to include when its available. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The April issue of the lichen task force newsletter is available here. Delivered by MeegsC ( talk) 21:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This could use your help... - UtherSRG (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)