User talk:CorradoNai

Your submission at Articles for creation: Come into My Cellar (July 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jovanmilic97 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Come into My Cellar and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Come into My Cellar, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Dear Jovanmilic97, thank you for flagging this. There was an issue with the citation style and the external link, which directed to a 'not found' page. I believe this is now fixed and the source is reliabl and secondary. As for the indpendent, this is not possible, as the article is a plot summary, as done for other stories in S Is for Space. Happy to fix any other issues. Thanks for your help. CorradoNai (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, CorradoNai! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Come into My Cellar (July 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Atlantic306 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Come into My Cellar and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Come into My Cellar, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Atlantic306 (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Dear Atlantic306, thank you for the feedback. I have now added a reception section, based on some reviews I've found online; hovewer, being blogs, I am not sure they qualify as realible sources. Note that I have not referenced them individually to avoid a "A said this", "B said that" format, but rather tried to find a consensus formulation. I also wonder, why is a reception section necessary? I understand it is useful, but is it needed for articles on short stories? This is a steep learning curve. Thanks for the help. CorradoNai (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Reviews help articles to pass WP:GNG but they need to be WP:Reliable sources regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Atlantic306 et al., I've looked for reviews categorized as reliable sources, didn't find any! Can we consider this story summary as worthy of an own page based on WP:NB, in particular based on point 3 (having the story being adapted for at least two short films) and point 5 (Ray Bradbury being a very influential fiction and short story writer)? There are other short stories in S is for Space which have an own page. I am not claiming this will be the most important entry on Wikipedia, but it might be of interest for people interested in the synopsis and adaptations of 'Come into My Cellar'. PS I have deleted the reception based on the blog entry CorradoNai (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, to be approved it needs extra references. Have you tried searching JSTOR for academic papers that are about it or include consideration of it ? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, it was not easy but I found a thesis discussing the story, which is now referenced in the article (https://www.academia.edu/38147146/FANTASTIC_AND_SCIENCE_FICTIONAL_ELEMENTS_IN_RAY_BRADBURYS_STORIES.pdf). Is that enough? CorradoNai (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

hi, another good reference would be needed for me to publish, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

hi, another good reference would be needed for me to publish, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Found another one! It's actually in German, and not totally sure if that's good enough. What do you think? CorradoNai (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Are there any urls for them ? Atlantic306 (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, yepp. I'v added on the Reception section. CorradoNai (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Come into My Cellar (July 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Slywriter was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Come into My Cellar and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Slywriter (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I will take a look if I want other reviews, thanks CorradoNai (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Come into My Cellar has been accepted

Come into My Cellar, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Atlantic306 (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi CorradoNai, and thank you for coming to the IDEA Network Wiki Workshop! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Please do update your User page regularly and share what you are planning to contribute to on Wikipedia. Our intro page provides helpful information for users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! drkirstyross (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Just FYI

Hi Corrado: Just because I know you're at least borderline interested... ;) Feel free to pass the link along to whoever else you think might be too! MeegsC (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks User:MeegsC and sorry for the belated answer, I was on holiday. I am DEFINITELY intrsted, just a bit slow in getting the nuts and bolts of how to edit Wikipedia! Cheers, Corrado CorradoNai (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

<--- Previous issue | Next issue ---> | Tip Line SYMBIOSIS: The lichen task force newsletter — October 2022 A look at what we've accomplished, working together
As a subset of WP:FUNGI, the lichen task force is working to improve coverage of the world's lichens – unique organisms composed of one or more fungal partners with one or more photosynthetic partners. A growing body of evidence suggests that some of the roughly 1000 secondary metabolites produced by various lichens may prove instrumental in our ongoing battle against harmful pathogens. Want to learn more? Join us!	Articles of note Esculenta has nominated two articles for GA: Solorina crocea Verrucariaceae – a family of mostly lichenized fungi found primarily on rocks and soil in the Northern Hemisphere Solorina crocea – also known as "orange chocolate chip lichen", this was one of the first lichen species to be formally scientifically described
Project news It's been another busy month for the task force. Among the accomplishments: We've tagged another 700 articles, categories and templates as being under the purview of the task force. Importance levels have now been set for nearly all of the task force's articles. Thousands of articles have been tagged with lichen class/order/genus/species categories as appropriate. Work has continued on converting those articles which still using old "taxobox" templates to the newer automatic taxobox and speciesbox templates. There are now fewer than 95 left to modify. MerielGJones has created articles for a number of important lichenologists, including James D. Lawrey, Thomas George Allan Green, Pier Luigi Nimis, Hannes Hertel, Ludger Kappen, and Christian Leuckert. Esculenta added one for Georges Clauzade. Dozens of articles have been created for genera and species of lichen and lichenicolous fungi. The outline of lichens is now almost completely referenced. Work has continued on the Draft:Glossary of lichen terms, which will hopefully be ready to move into main space within the month.
Lichen news A recent study strongly suggests that industrial forestry, along with the introduction of nitrogen, is the main cause of lichen declines in Norway spruce forests. This decline has resulted in "cascading effects on biodiversity and function of boreal forest canopies", according to the study's authors.
Got a suggestion? A correction? Something you'd like to see included in a future issue? Drop a note at the Tip Line with your ideas!

November lichen task force newsletter

Hi Corrado: We had three lichen articles on Wikipedia's front page this month! Doing our bit to get fungi out in front of the general public. ;)

<--- Previous issue | Next issue ---> | Tip Line SYMBIOSIS: The Lichen task force newsletter — November 2022 A look at what we've accomplished, working together
As a subset of WP:FUNGI, the lichen task force is working to improve coverage of the world's lichens – unique organisms composed of one or more fungal partners with one or more photosynthetic partners. Want to learn more? Join us!	Articles of note Solorina crocea New GA articles: Solorina crocea – also known as "orange chocolate chip lichen", this was one of the first lichen species to be formally scientifically described Haematomma ochroleucum DYK appearances: Felipes Haematomma ochroleucum Piccolia
Project news Our efforts to improve the coverage of lichens and lichenology on Wikipedia continue. Among this month's accomplishments: Biographical articles now exist for each winner of the Acharius Medal, which is awarded in recognition of lifetime achievements in lichenology. The glossary of lichen terms has been moved to article space, and now contains well over 100 entries. There's still plenty of room for expansion though! We've tagged another 250+ articles, categories and templates as being under the purview of the task force. Work has continued on converting those articles which are still using old "taxobox" templates to the newer automatic taxobox and speciesbox templates. There are now only 25 left to modify. Dozens of articles have been created for genera and species of lichen and lichenicolous fungi.
Screenshot showing impact of DYKs on article viewing numbers If you're looking for a reason to get an article onto Wikipedia's main page, look no further than this screenshot. It shows the views for the three project articles that were featured in the DYK section in October. Of particular interest is the corresponding spike in views of our lichen article (shown by the blue line), as people clicked through to learn more. We're educating the general public, a few thousand people at a time!
Got a suggestion? A correction? Something you'd like to see included in a future issue? Drop a note at the Tip Line with your ideas!

MeegsC (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Awesome! I really like the glossary! CorradoNai (talk) 05:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

December newsletter

<--- Previous issue | Next issue ---> | Tip Line SYMBIOSIS: The lichen task force newsletter — December 2022 A look at what we've accomplished, working together
Happy holidays! Regardless of which holidays you choose to celebrate, here's hoping they're enjoyable. As we reach the end of our first six months, we can be proud of the progress we've made to date – particularly considering the tiny size of our task force. We now have more than 4,100 articles, categories, templates and redirects under our watch. We've created a sizeable glossary (with more entries being added every day), whittled down the project's cleanup listing, and added biographies about a number of prominent lichenologists. To date, we have one Featured Article and 23 Good Articles. Clearly, there's plenty more to do, but we're off to a solid start. Here's to a productive new year!	Articles of note DYK appearances: Solorina crocea Solorina crocea – following its recent upgrade to GA status, this article about the "orange chocolate chip lichen" was featured on the encyclopedia's front page Rebecca Yahr and Gyalectidium yahriae – a dual hook about a lichenologist and the species named after her
Project news Editors have been busy over the past month: The glossary of lichen terms has come along in leaps and bounds, and now contains several hundred entries. An expanded list of "missing lichenologists" has been created and work has begun on associated articles. All lichen taxa articles have now been converted to the automatic taxobox system, making this project one of the very few to have finished all such conversions. This should make it much easier to stay on top of future taxonomic updates. Articles have been created for dozens of genera and species of lichen and lichenicolous fungi.
Newsletter challenge A sentence in our Cladonia squamosa article was challenged back in 2014(!!) when a reader discovered that the supplied source did not corroborate the information. The editor who finds a valid source for the sentence (or corrects the information as necessary) and, in addition, replaces any redlinks with appropriate links to our new glossary of lichen terms will get public kudos in the next newsletter.
Got a suggestion? A correction? Something you'd like to see included in a future issue? Drop a note at the Tip Line with your ideas!

MeegsC (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fungi in Art has been accepted

Fungi in Art, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

_Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 20:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! That was fast CorradoNai (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

FYI

Just so you're aware (since s/he didn't even bother to inform you himself/herself), Pichemist has submitted your new article to WP:GAN. That's really not on! The instructions right on the nomination page say "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article must consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination." Clearly, s/he didn't bother to read that! MeegsC (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks MeegsC for your comment. But I thought it was a good thing for it to be nominated as GA? Or what am I missing? CorradoNai (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

CorradoNai typically it's the editor that has done the work that gets to submit it for GA. After all, you have the sources and can answer any questions that get raised during the GA process! And it's nice for YOU to be recognised for your work, rather than somebody who hasn't contributed anything! Other articles this user has submitted are getting dinged because they know nothing about the subjects they're submitting and can't update the articles as requested. MeegsC (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I see, thank you for pointing this out MeegsC, I was totally unaware. So it would look like as though submitting for GAN s/he gets the credit for creating a GA? If so a bit dodgy, especially as as you mention, there might be questions asked during the review process CorradoNai (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

CorradoNai, there will definitely be questions. There always are with a good review! And the nominator needs to have the time, patience and resources (i.e. references) to bolster the article where it needs bolstering. Your article is off to a great start, but it definitely needs some tidying before it's going to pass muster at GA. And Pichemist should have realised that right away rather than trying to get credit for it! MeegsC (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot MeegsC. So while we thank User:PichemistPichemist for moving the article in the mainspace and suggesting it could qualify as a GA, I think the question now is how to make sure I become the nominator and take care of the steps and any follows-up which results? Thanks! CorradoNai (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for my lack of foresight as I already explained on my talk page. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 08:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Fungi in Art

Hi Corrado: Yes, I'd be happy to help review the article! As you say, it is definitely a monster. ;) But a really cool subject and you've done some great work here. A few quick things to get you started:

• The lede is far too long. It should be 3–4 paragraphs at most, summarising what the main body of the article will cover in more detail. Don't get bogged down in specifics here.
• The picture placement needs to be fixed so that the pictures don't interfere with the table of contents. Right now, the TOC is being pushed to the centre of the screen.
• Never include external links in the body of the article. If they're appropriate, they can be included in an "External links" section at the foot of the article.
• Footnotes should always be in numerical order, if you have more than one at the end of a phrase or sentence.
• You should only wikilink to an article once. Right now, for example, you link to lichen nearly a dozen times! ;) The link should always be at the first instance of the word.
• Don't go into great depth about things that aren't DIRECTLY about fungi in art. For instance, in the section on "Mycelia or hyphae in art", you spend three paragraphs explaining in great detail what mycelia and hyphae are, and what functions they serve in fungi. This level of detail doesn't belong in this article; that's what your wikilinks to the relevant articles are for. Readers can click through to learn more about those structures if they're interested. What they want to read about in THIS article is how they're used in art. There's quite a bit of pruning along these lines that can be done throughout the article.
• Those choppy little 1–2 sentence paragraphs should be combined where possible. Right now, there are some pretty bitty sections.
• I'll keep an eye on your progress and will provide more detailed suggestions in a few days.

Great start! MeegsC (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot MeegsC, this is very helpful! I will get down to it, starting with easier and orking my way through. Again, many thanks for the help! CorradoNai (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Corrado: Looks like you're off to a flying start! A few more things for your list:

• The lede shouldn't need any footnotes; everything you're saying here should be repeated (and expanded upon) in the main body of the article, and that's where the footnotes should go.
• Every paragraph should have at least one citation, which should go at the end of the paragraph. If there's only one citation, it needs to cover the material for the entire paragraph.
• Don't repeat words in headers. If you're in a section called "Mushrooms in art", don't then repeat that by saying "Mushrooms in fiction" in a subsection. Just say "In fiction". (The music section is guilty of this too.)
• In the "access-date" parameters for the references, spell out the month. Does "2022-12-06" mean 6 December 2022 or 12 June 2022? It's obvious now, since this is a new article, but it won't be so obvious in 10 years – particularly considering that readers will be from a multitude of countries, which have different ways of parsing dates. Help them out!

MeegsC (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Corrado: It doesn't look like I was clear in my comment about citations. Don't put ALL of the citations for a paragraph at the end of the paragraph. They should go immediately after the relevant sentence. But the final sentence in each paragraph always needs a citation. If that (single) citation covers the whole paragraph, then you only need to put it once. Basically, you're trying to make it easier for readers to verify that the information they're reading is correct. Let me know if this isn't clear! MeegsC (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks MeegsC, it seems I am aobut to learn how to revert edits ;-) And by the way, thanks SO MUCH for your help in making me a better Wikipedia editor. Cheers! CorradoNai (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Ouch! When I click on 'undo,' it says: 'The edit could not be undone because it does not exist or was deleted.' Do you know what could be the reason User:MeegsC? Or should I do manually (hopefully not!)? Thanks, Corrado CorradoNai (talk) 07:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Ouch indeed! And I'm sorry that it was my unclarity that caused this problem. :/ The reason an edit can't be undone is because another edit has been done in the meantime that also touches some of the same changed bits. Once that's happened, you can't go back. To be honest, it's probably better to do things in small chunks (i.e. a paragraph or a section at a time) rather than try to update the whole article at once. For one thing, that means there's less of a chance of an edit conflict if some other editor makes a change while you're doing the same! I'll "fix" one of the paragraphs where the citations were moved, and show you how I did it. Give me a few hours, as I have some other work I should be doing first! ;) MeegsC (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

You are a legend. No hurry! CorradoNai (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi MeegsC, while I am still working at fixing the month format of the references, I think I took over all the rest. Some citation format, paragraph-wise, might still be a bit off. It has to do with transclusion (I cannot modify that withough going at the source), or because a reference is actually down in the text (for example, the first paragraph of 'Mushrooms in art' has no references, as it contains 'common' knowledge, or things explained in the article as a whole). While I will keep working on the page on and off, is there anything else that can be done to improve the page at this point? Also, I don't want to sound arrogant, but can we consider nominating the page to be mid-rather than low-importance? I believe it might be appropriate given the many people working on fungi and the arts, the historical and cultural significance, and the potential for sustainalbe solutions. Many thanks for helping me become a better editor! ~~~~ CorradoNai (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Corrado: You're getting there! There are still a lot of unreferenced paragraphs (any paragraph not in the lede needs at least one ref). "Common knowledge" won't be common knowledge to everyone – particularly people not as involved with fungi as you are! ;) And there are still a number of external links in the middle of the article. As for the importance level, you'll need to ask someone at the WikiProject Fungi about that; as a lichen specialist, I don't know what they consider important for their project! MeegsC (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, MeegsC. I feel like I've taken over most of you suggestions, for which I am grateful. Can we move this project to the next staeg (nominate for B-level)? Can you guide me on how to do that? CorradoNai (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi CorradoNai. Somebody in the WP:FUNGI group would be the one to ask about that; they have their own requirements. Or you could just submit it for GA, and see how it goes. Good luck! MeegsC (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, MeegsC. Always appreciated! CorradoNai (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

January newsletter

<--- Previous issue | Next issue ---> | Tip Line SYMBIOSIS: The lichen task force newsletter — January 2023 A look at what we've accomplished, working together
Happy new year! We head into 2023 with plenty of work to do. We're missing articles on a handful of lichen families, scores of lichen genera and thousands of lichen species. Dozens of important lichenologists are "missing" too. We need to check or update the taxonomy of hundreds of existing taxa articles. Many articles about basic lichen structures and functions are either tiny stubs or badly in need of referencing or updating. There's certainly enough to keep us busy for a good long while! Here's to a productive year ahead.
Project news Esculenta has continued to expand and buff the glossary of lichen terms, which now contains hundreds of entries and dozens of pictures. A tilt at featured list status is in its future. MerielGJones has added articles for several important lichenologists. MeegsC has completely rewritten the lichen growth forms article, and has nominated it for good article status. Several pre-existing stubs have been redirected to this expanded article.
Newsletter challenge – last month's champion and a new challenge Kazamzam met last month's challenge and provided an updated reference for the Cladonia squamosa article – which indicated a significantly larger world range for the species than had been previously listed. Nice job! This month, we're looking for someone to replace the dead reference in Ramalina fraxinea (defunct since April 2018!) with one (or more) which corroborates the information that the old reference did. The editor who meets this challenge will get public kudos in the next newsletter.
Got a suggestion? A correction? Something you'd like to see included in a future issue? Drop a note at the Tip Line with your ideas!

MeegsC (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

February lichen task force newsletter

<--- Previous issue | Next issue ---> | Tip Line SYMBIOSIS: The lichen task force newsletter — February 2023 A look at what we've accomplished, working together
Did you know that lichens can grow on glass, plastic and metals, as well as their more typical wood, stone, leaf and dirt substrates? Did you know that scientists have done experiments on the International Space Station where lichens have been exposed to space for weeks at a time — enduring the vacuum, solar radiation, and frigid temperatures outside of the station — and that these lichens have then photosynthesized normally when returned to earth? Did you know that lichens cover more than 7 percent of the earth's surface, and that some live permanently submerged underwater? Join us to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of these amazing organisms. There's plenty to write about!	Articles of note New GA article: Lichen growth forms DYK appearances: Amazonotrema (January 10) Various lichen growth forms
Project news With the (hopefully temporary) loss of our most prolific editor, things were decidedly slower in January, with fewer recent changes to report. MerielGJones has added to her admirable list of articles on important lichenologists with one about Oliver Gilbert and another about Arthur Edward Wade. MeegsC took lichen growth forms to GA status. Verrucariaceae, which Esculenta expanded, is currently being reviewed for potential GA status as well. Jengod created a nice composite photo for the project to use. (See it at right) Various WikiGnomes have continued to fix spelling and grammar issues in the recently-expanded glossary of lichen terms.
Got a suggestion? A correction? Something you'd like to see included in a future issue? Drop a note at the Tip Line with your ideas!

MeegsC (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fungi in art

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fungi in art 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 TompaDompa -- TompaDompa (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

That's wonderful, thanks! Looking forward to the feedback and thank you for your work. CorradoNai (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fungi in art

The article Fungi in art you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Fungi in art for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TompaDompa -- TompaDompa (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Why do you say ups and not oops?

Why do you say ups and not oops? Born25121642 (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Because I am sllightly dislexic? Don't know, probably becuase English is not my native language. Saw your edits in the section on Counterculture, thanks a lot. CorradoNai (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

ok, thank you too. Born25121642 (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

May 2023 lichen task force newsletter

<--- Previous issue | Next issue ---> | Tip Line SYMBIOSIS: The Lichen task force newsletter — May 2023 A look at what we've accomplished, working together
It's been a few months since the last newsletter, primarily because there hasn't been much to report! We continue to make slow progress on turning red links to blue in the outline of lichens, mostly through the addition of articles about lichen taxa. The glossary of lichen terms has also continued to grow, with dozens of definitions added over the past few months. However, given that there are more than 1000 lichen genera (we have articles on just under 900 of them), and more than 20,000 lichen species (90% of which have no article yet), there's plenty more to write about. All hands on deck!	Articles of note New GA article: Verrucariaceae Caloplaca flavescens – one of the many lichen species with no article as of 1 May
Project news With the upgrade of Verrucariaceae back in late February, we have another GA for the project, but there have been no GA or DYK additions since then. MerielGJones continues to expand our coverage of lichenologists, with articles about Léon Vouaux and Kenneth Andrew Kershaw added since the last newsletter. The number of articles on our cleanup listing has grown, with 4% of the task force's articles showing some sort of issue. These range from missing or unreliable sources to dead external links and orphaned articles. Some of these could probably be sorted relatively quickly, if you're looking for a fast way to help the project improve its coverage.
Got a suggestion? A correction? Something you'd like to see included in a future issue? Drop a note at the Tip Line with your ideas!

MeegsC (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Fungi in art

Greetings, CorradoNai, I'm Netherzone, an editor who has been contributing to WP for some time now primarily focusing on Visual art, and an emphasis on environmental and ecological art as well as contemporary Indigenous artists. I also have an interest in hot springs, as you can see from my user page. While I am not an expert in fungi, it certainly is interest of mine (I have attended the Telluride Mushroom Festival a couple times, attended cultivation and identification workshops, and gone on multiple forays in various places in the Northern hemisphere.) I created the articles on the mycologists/mushroom enthusiasts Gary Lincoff, Laura Guzmán Dávalos and Eugenia Bone. I'd like to help out with improving the article Fungi in art. Netherzone (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Netherzone, I appreciate your message. Very much appreciated would be any help towards removing the maintenance templates messages. I thought I have addressed most points, although I recognize there is still room for much improvement. I think the strenght of this page is, beside the fact that it didn't exist before but information was scattered as many subpages on Wikipedia, its structure - presenting fungi in art based on fungal form and artform - so that more examples can be just added. I am still learning (both about editing Wikipedia and about the subject) and I will keep working on this page. It's just that I am very busy at the moment (as everyone is, I am sure) and have slightly other priorities. Ping me if you realize while working on this that there is anything specific I can help with. Again, I appreciate you. CorradoNai (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)