Talk:Microphyte
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Content to do
[edit]Suggestion for content, Are micro algae a certain classification of algae or do they exist across classifications red blue green ect?
Spirulina: Algae or bacteria?
[edit]Is displaying a picture of spirulina correct? I thought that spirulina is a cyanobacteria, not an algae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.147.33.106 (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Requested move 23 October 2017
[edit]
 | It was proposed in this section that Microphyte be renamed and moved to Microalgae.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links: current log • target log |
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved. PepperBeast (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
(non-admin closure) Microphyte → Microalgae – All searches show microalgae to be much more widely used and is also used extensively on entry page and in Wikicommons Iztwoz (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support The article and its sub articles, even the navbox all use the term "microalgae" so I don't see how it isn't the common name.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I note that the two articles were merged in 2007/2008, possibly to the wrong name. Both histories need to be preserved for copyleft attribution purposes. Andrewa (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Microphyte is the old term, replaced by Microalgae, I think I heard once. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support, at least provisionally on good-faith assumption. Would like to see a WP:COMMONNAME analysis. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 20:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Closing. Looks totally uncontroversial. PepperBeast (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.