Talk:Watermelon snow

message: This articles seems to have a lot of duplicating without citing from this Wayne's Word article.  I've asked User:TheAlphaWolf about this on the talk page because s/he was the one who added the majority of the current content.
Wayne's Word:
Here:
Wanye's Word:
Here:
It should be pointed out that minor alterations to the original text may squeak by fair use, but is certainly plagiarism  nonetheless.  Unless User:TheAlphaWolf is the original owner of this article, in which case I apologize for the inconvenience, but ask that s/he should add this information to the article.
-Kelvinc 17:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, not original author. I didn't know it was still plagiarism. Ok, thanks for pointing that out. I guess the external links aren't enough to "reference" it right? this was one of my first articles and I had seen other wiki articles that are basically plagirized but linked the site in their external links, so I thought that was enough. Would changing the subsection to "External links and references" be better? Should I make a whole new subsection? Or do I have to go all the way with the MLA format and all? --TheAlphaWolf 23:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Citing sources.  It's not just the link, it should be the fact that certain sections of the text are derived from the WW article.  It would probably be best to actually go MLAish on it, because just saying it's a reference doesn't really help and someone else will still be asking whether this was plagiarized when comparing between the two.  Kelvinc 01:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There, how's that? I got the format from the wayne's word website.--TheAlphaWolf 03:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright?

message: Anybody know who's work is attributed with the discovery of the causative agent?  Any chance of a more international/less colloquial term for 'pant cuffs' that Americans would also understand? Roguexviii (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: info/Terms

message: Should separate pages be created for Watermelon snow and Chlamydomonas nivalis? They relate to each other, but one is obviously a living organism and the other a non-living object created in-part-by the organism. Like, I come to this Watermelon Snow page and see a picture of an organism at first glance. Kind of odd. Just my thoughts. Helixer (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that would make much sense, since they are so closely linked. But maybe the article should be moved to Chlamydomonas nivalis?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a bit odd, but I don't think separate pages would be as useful. Both ARE very closely linked, and it's hard to talk about one without talking about the other. TheAlphaWolf (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then I agree that the importance should be put on Chlamydomonas nivalis and not Watermelon Snow. Helixer (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding splitting the article, feel free to do it if you've got sufficient information for the two to stand alone (see the guidelines at WP:VIRUS for splitting articles; I know this isn't a virus, but it's highly related to this circumstance). I know I was shocked to find the two in the same article, and I was also shocked when I discovered back in 2008, Year of the Frog that there was no good article on Bd. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs)  22:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate pages? 

message: The merge tag points here but this appears to be a discussion on splitting Chlamydomonas nivalis from the watermelon snow article. The only example of snow algae is watermelon snow and the watermelon snow article is unique in its discussion of the specific phenomenon. Furthermore all the information in article on Snow algae is contained in the watermelon snow save for a section dealing with locations where it is found (everywhere) but that is sourced to a dead link, so I think it is safe to redirect the Snow algae article to the watermelon snow article. I know that's not what the merge tag is saying (the reverse), but it seems like the best thing to do given that there is no other snow algae that I can find. Snow algae is watermelon snow. Therefore, redirect. -- MoonLichen(Talk) 02:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs)  04:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Mesotaenium berggrenii is an alga that colours the snow grey.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.51.201 (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge discussion?

message: I think glacial melt and the way that watermelon snow changes the albedo of glaciers to make melting more rapid should be a topic that is included in this article. 
https://europepmc.org/article/med/27329445
Lutz S, Anesio AM, Raiswell R, et al. The biogeography of red snow microbiomes and their role in melting arctic glaciers. Nature Communications. 2016 Jun;7:11968. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms11968.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpommier (talk • contribs) 02:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glacial Melt