Talk:Kelp

Algae High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Algae, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the photosynthetic organisms commonly called algae and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AlgaeWikipedia:WikiProject AlgaeTemplate:WikiProject AlgaeAlgae articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Marine life (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marine life, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life articles

Food and drink Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 12 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Palmtree207.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific classification

"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) The text on the page speaks of kingdom Chromista (or Protista), but the classification box on the right says Kingdom Chromalveolata. I am personally in favor of Protista (the Five Kingdom system), but if some people prefer Chromista/Chromalveaolata then a selection should be made between these two. StefanTerwijk (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have introduced kingdom = Protista, and phylum = Ochrophyta syn. Phaeophyta. Further, I have temporarily blanked the previous list of seven families (based on an old source), neither consistent with the three commonly cited families, nor with the new eight families. This is awaiting correction by me or anyone who is up to it. Carystus (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Kelp Goose

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

Weight loss

What about mentioning the use of kelp tablets to lose weight? Laursch.

Historical Meanings of Kelp

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)[reply]

Species List

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)[reply]

Perhaps you are right! I will look at it again - but I may leave the list, indeed add to it. But some info on the Group in general is perhaps a good idea. But please help - who wrote "Neat" (below)? - suspicious. And forther the section "Uses" can only be seen when in "Edit" not otherwise. Osborne 13:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best left and a new article written on "Laminariales" - it would contain a list - but if I do it much more. to be considered.Osborne 14:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There already is an article on Laminaria - It would be best to work on this & cross ref. What do you think. If you wish to contact me please use My talk - I may forget about this "Talk:Kelp"! Osborne 15:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelp Farming

I wanted to say thank you to everyone who has worked on this article. It has been very useful for me. I'm also hoping that someone can do an article about kelp farming. I haven't been able to find much on this topic on wikipedia. The Algaculture article even states that macroalgae aren't commercially viable and aren't farmed very much. THEN WHERE DOES MY SEAWEED SALAD COME FROM. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.203.79.14 (talk)

Kelp and acne

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).[reply]

It should be mentioned that foods high in iodine content (which kelp is) - can cause cystic nodular acne. A search for 'kelp + acne' yields a ton of results associating acne breakouts due to high kelp consumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Futurelovers (talk • contribs) 15:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

Is "Kelp" given as ref "2" correct? - it a note with a ref rather than a ref? Osborne 15:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Help request

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

2/ The section"Uses" can only be seen when in Edit!! I want to check it, not sure that it is correct. Osborne 13:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

(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. <ref name="name" />), 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 (U T C)

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)[reply]

Ah thanks - will look at it. I knew of the: /> when the ref is used a second time - but I sometimes get it a bit mixed up, especially when editing and putting in the ref before the first! Will take a look now thanks Osborne 14:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture's White Balance

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)[reply]

Fraser 2012

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)[reply]

Kelp in agriculture section

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)[reply]

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Length

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)[reply]

Dating

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)[reply]

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)[reply]