Talk:Kelp

message: "Kingdom:Chromalveolata" must be wrong - there are five or six kingdoms (I don't know the wiki standard): Plantae, Fungi, Animalia, Protista and Monera/Eubacteria and Archaebacteria. I.e. no kingdom called Chromalveolata. I don't know to which kingdom kelp belongs though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.44.146 (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: en-Wikipedia no longer uses the outdated concept of kingdom "Protista", since it is highly paraphyletic. Carystus, you've misunderstood what a taxonomic authority is. An "authority" is the author of the original name. Redefining the phylogeny doesn't change who originally published the name, so please don't remove the authority from the article. The list of families is not "based on an old source", and blanking content from a page is typically considered vandalism. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What Wikipedia policy says that kingdom Protista is no longer used? As far as I understand it, while kingdom Protista is somewhat outdated, there are no widely accepted alternative kingdoms that are used in its place -- only clades (which i think would be Heterokonta in this case, not entirely certain). As for "kingdom Chromistra", from what I gather from the article on that kingdom, it was proposed and championed by one individual biologist from 1981, and is most likely polyphyletic: which is even more disfavourable than paraphylia! Protista may not be a perfect classification, but it is surely more correct and more widely accepted than Chromista. Therefore, I have made this change to the infobox
Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific classification

message: I cannot find any references to the association between Kelp Goose and New Zealand.  Alan Liefting 09:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kelp Goose

message: The principal meaning of the word "kelp" through the 19th Century was in relation to "soda ash," and indeed one meaning of "kelp" in the 19th Century was as one type of "soda ash." I think the present article, which is also the target of the redirect from Laminariales, might need to be broken into two in order to manage this change in the meaning of the word itself. Anyway, I'm making some small additions to the article to begin working in this direction.EAS 21:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Meanings of Kelp 

message: This article should not be a list of the species of kelp.  It should describe common characteristics of kelp, maybe mentioning certain species as examples, not just list species.  Werothegreat 21:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Species List

message: I read about this briefly in a book published by Reader's Digest called "Foods that Harm, Foods that Heal" and it mentioned that kelp can cause severe cystic acne. Can someone please research that and mention it in this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.6.247.155 (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kelp and acne 

message: Is "Kelp" given as ref "2" correct? - it a note with a ref rather than a ref?  Osborne 15:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure exactly which ref you're asking about.  I tweaked the "Kelper" definitions but the rest look fine to me. Hoof Hearted 16:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: 1/ Who wrote "Neat!"...? see above It is suspicious. 
:Click on the "history" tab for this talk page.  It was added by Keleigh796
::"User:Keleigh796|Keleigh796]]" WHEN CLICKED IS "EMPTY"  I don't understand it. Osborne 14:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because it's a new account and the person hasn't set up a user page.  By default, a User: link will take you to their user page.  You can see Keleigh796's edits by clicking "User Contributions" in the lower left of the "EMPTY" page (looks like the account is less than 2 weeks old).  You can also click the "discussion" tab from there and see that someone has welcomed them.  I don't think there's anything sinister going on.  As ais523 points out, it was probably a newbie testing out some edit functions.  Hoof Hearted 15:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There appears to be an improper ref tag in the Morphology section.  I will fix it.  Hoof Hearted 13:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) I've fixed the formatting there; when a reference is mentioned for a second time in an article, you need to give an extra slash at the end of the ref tag (i.e. ), or it blanks the article up to the next reference. As for the 'neat' section, it appeared to be a test by a new user; I've removed it. Hope that helps! --ais523 13:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aah!  I thought you still needed the end tag on re-used refs.  Thanks for the lesson.  :-)  Hoof Hearted 14:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help request

message: The picture is way to orange. You should adjust the white balance so that it looks more natural.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.190.105 (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture's White Balance 

message: A recent review from Fraser (2012) reminds the fact that the meaning of the term "kelp" is broad, even if it's often refering to Laminariales species. By the way, Durvillaea species, often called "bull-kelp", are no Laminariales, but Fucales. In this order of idea, this article needs at least a more general intro. What are your opinions?Silk666 (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraser 2012 

message: I removed the "Kelp in agriculture" section as it was mostly an unsourced ad. If sourceable, parts can be returned to this article with depth about the topic, not just one company. The section is on the talk page of the species article, Ecklonia maxima. Eau (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kelp in agriculture section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kelp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100325103205/http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Seaweed-May-Fight-Obesity-Could-Alginates-Be-The-Answer-To-A-Dieters-Prayer/Article/201003415579083 to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Seaweed-May-Fight-Obesity-Could-Alginates-Be-The-Answer-To-A-Dieters-Prayer/Article/201003415579083
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024222944/http://animals.howstuffworks.com/marine-life/green-glossary-kelp-forest.htm to http://animals.howstuffworks.com/marine-life/green-glossary-kelp-forest.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article should mention the typical dimension as well as maximal dimension. For instance I have here that Kelp can grow up to a size of 25 meters. But Wikiepdia does not mention anything related to its size/length right now. I would like to suggest to add this information to the main article, so visitors get an "instant feel" how large/big Kelp may be. 2A02:8388:1600:A200:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: There seems to be a conflict in the information presented by the article. The taxon box states they evolved in the Lutetian while the text states they evolved in the Miocene. To add to this, Kiel et al., (2024) state that they evolved in the Priabonian. Does anybody who knows more about macroalgae have any suggestions of which time is the most likely, to mitigate the confusion caused by multiple times being present in the article? Sauriazoicillus (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been brought to my attention that another paper (Kawai et al., (2016)) found a Late Cretaceous origin of the order via molecular clock studies. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 10:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating