User talk:Sasata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Reminders to myself[edit]

State of Genera lists in family articles[edit]

Not including monogeneric families. I'm afraid things leave much to be desired, and I can hardly proceed without reasonably accurate lists of genera-by-family... Circéus (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, give me a day or two. Sasata (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, you migth want to review what we had unearthed while working on Marasmiaceae, as it is relevant to some cases here. Circéus (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we want three crucial things here:

  1. Any given genus is listed for one and one family only (or incertae sedis).
    1. The genus article does not conflict with the family one.
  2. We list as many genera in the article as the number we have in text.
  3. The number in family articles is the same as in List of Agaricales genera (noting where the numbers of genera in a family differ from the number in that entry for the Dict.).

Beyond that there are places where practical choices will have to be made, as you noted about Hormographiella. I suspect Entolomataceae might come down to what is simplest for us (e.g. if in some case most species don't have names under Entoloma, as happens with Endoptychum). Circéus (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Hmmm, Crepidotaceae and Chromocyphellaceae need to be added to various places, according to this ... the work keeps piling up ... Sasata (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Maybe we should stay with Kirk & al.'s Inocybaceae here, but maybe that's just my instinct. These devellopment are really nothing short of a Fungal equivalent of the APG revolution, but they lack a "central synthesis", with Kirk & al. slow to take up on these changes. Circéus (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I dunno. From the paper: "The present investigation serves to highlight a number of contentious issues relating to recent molecular studies of the Crepidotaceae in particular, and molecular systematics in general: As has been shown before, taxon sampling is of crucial importance, and the addition of various key taxa may have considerable influence on the resulting phylogenetic hypotheses. In this study, most of the investigations differ widely in their choice of ingroup (and outgroup) taxa, leading to widely different hypotheses of higher-level relationships." So all this work may have to be revised in the future. This sort of stuff is why I find it easier to work on single species, despite my "mission" to fill out the higher-level taxa. Ok, that's enough for me today, I feel like doing something else :) Sasata (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
        • What where Kirk & al. thinking anyway? You can't synonymize Crepidotaceae under Inocybaceae under any rule of the code! Circéus (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Having thought about it a bit more, how about we keep everything in Crepidotaceae (=? Inocybaceae sensu Kirk & al.) with commentary to the effect the family is known to be polyphyletic, but an final disposition has yet to be agreed on? It's already what we do about Cystodermateae and Endoptychum (at least in List of Agaricaceae genera), for example. Circéus (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Sound good to me. I will try to sort out Amylocorticiales, Crepidotaceae, Inocybaceae, and Chromocyphellaceae today. Sasata (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok, I started an article at Amylocorticiales (will be adding more over the next few days). Any opinion on how we should handle the taxonomy of genera within? Give family as incertae sedis, and redirect Amylocorticiaceae to Amylocorticiales? Sasata (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • When I read it, it seemed pretty obvious they were better circumscribing Amylocorticiaceae and moving it to a monotypic order. The only genera that could be said to become incertae sedis would be those (if any) that they excluded from Amylocorticiaceae without assigning them a putative family. Circéus (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • So apparently Cribbea might be in Physalacriaceae. This is convenient (if correct: I don,t have access to that journal) as it resets Cortinariaceae to the correct number of genera, but it threatens Physalacriaceae with Cribbeaceae. w00t! </sarcasm> Circéus (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    • What fun would it be if it wasn't a challenge? I don't have access to that journal, but I know who does. I'll ask if I can get it and update the page. Sasata (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I got the paper from Cas (very nice paper, BTW), and yes, it's clearly in the Physalacriaceae, pretty close to Oudemansiella. Sasata (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • For Bolbitiaceae, I'll start work and add a note on the Agaricales families list about the 17 v. 15 discrepancy. For Entolomataceae, the Wikipedia way is typically "when in doubt, be conservative", so going with six genera and noting the dict. disagreement is a reasonable approach. I'll be waiting on a usable combined list for Inocybaceae and Crepidotaceae at the latter before I start on it. This leaves me with a reasonable buffer to work on.Circéus (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, having now looked at Co-David & al., I say we go with three genera (Clitop., Entol., Rhodocybella), since they made all the necessary combination (they suspect Rhodocybella to fall in Clitopilus, but keep it separate for now). I've edited the family list accordingly, and will now do the same for the generic list. Circéus (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Which author is being followed for Hygrophoraceae? Not only is the number of genera in the lead not that of the Dict., but we list 11 in the taxobox, which, although the number given in dict., are definitely not those placed there in that work. Circéus (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Some investigation here: We have Pseudoarmillariella under Tricholomataceae (including the list of genera), but it seems to belong fairly clearly in Hygrophoraceae. That genus is unplaced in the Dict., which recognizes Cuphophyllus, but that recognition seems unwarranted. If we add Camarophyllus and Gliophorus, but exclude Camarophyllopsis, we get 11 genera: the 10 from Dict. with three extra (Pseudoarm., Camarophyllus, Gl.) and two cut off (Cuph., Camarophyllopsis; the first seems doomed to synonymy, the second belongs somewhere else not yet clear) [1], [2]. I will be working with that. Circéus (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Hi Circeus, I'm still with you, just devoting my limited wiki-time to finishing a primate article offline. Will get back into Agaricales once this monkey is off my back (lol). Sasata (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
        • It's okay. As it is, it appears the one part where your input will be really needed are the Physalacriaceae, Inocybaceae/Crepidotaceae and Strophariaceae. I'm Probably going to have to expand a ridiculous amount of energy figuring out what's going on with Maccagnia too. Circéus (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Family Genera
in lead
Genera
in list
Notes
Amylocorticiaceae 10 8 What do we do of the Amylocorticiales paper?
  • I say we use it. The authors are heavy hitters in fungal molecular phylogenetics, they used a 6-locus dataset & large sample size, so it looks good. I'll update pages soonish. Sasata (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done
Bolbitiaceae 17 15 Found Cyphellopus and Galerella. Setchelliogaster may belong here too (says IF & MycoBank; Dict. says either Bolbitiaceae or Cortinariaceae)
Clavariaceae 7 7
Cortinariaceae 12 13[1] I confirmed that all 13 genera listed are given by the Dict as being in this family, so .... ? Will make stubs for those redlinks. Done.
Cyphellaceae 16 16
Entolomataceae 4 6[2] The Dict prefers to lump Rhodocybe, Rhodocybella, Rhodogaster, Richoniella, and several others not listed here into Entoloma. Many other sources keep them (or combinations thereof) separate. Who do we follow? The correct path to follow, I suspect, will only be revealed with much research ...
Fistulinaceae 3 3
Hydnangiaceae 2 (List)
4 (article)
4 # of genera depends on whether one treats the truffle-like Hydnangium and Podohydnangium as separate or lumped into Laccaria (like the Dict. does). Will investigate further.
Hygrophoraceae 9 11
Inocybaceae 13 10
Lyophyllaceae 8 9 All nine genera listed in the article belong in this family, says Dict. (Lyophyllopsis, however, is listed as "? Lyophyllaceae"
Mycenaceae 10 11 I guess the extra genus is the extinct Protomycena, to which the Dict. does not assign a family. Interestingly, they say the name is invalid.
Might be because their way of counting anamorphs is at best murky: they seem not to count Ugola in Lyophyllaceae; do they include Decapitatus in their count for Mycenaceae? Impossible to tell. If they don't, they give ten, but list nine (which becomes 10 with Protomycena).
Niaceae 6 6
Phelloriniaceae 2 2
Physalacriaceae 11 16 *Guyanagaster is new and not accounted for in the Dict
  • don't know about Hormomitaria-Dict says = Physalacria; Fungorum says it's valid; Mycobank says it's in the Marasmiaceae; no recent literature
    • I say we keep it in. It seems to be traditionally treated close to Physalacria, and MB seems to have it in Marasmiaceae because no family monograph of either group has been published since the 80s. I say edge on separate genus in Phys.
  • Dactylosporina: Dict says Marasmiaceae "or perhaps Physalacriaceae"; Fungorum & MycoBank says Marasmiaceae
  • Himantia is anamorphic; not sure about the Dict's accounting for anamorph genera
    • Dict. has Himantia unplaced to anything ("anamorphic Fungi").
Pleurotaceae 6 7 6 Fixed. Resupinatus was in there erroneously.
Pluteaceae 4 4
Psathyrellaceae 12 6 12 Now updated to include 12 genera. I included the anamorphic Hormographiella, don't know if that's "cheating" or not, but it has Coprinopsis teleomorphs, so it clearly belongs in this family.
Pterulaceae 12 12
Schizophyllaceae 2 2
Strophariaceae 18 13 In Matheny et al., 2006, they showed that Galerina, Phaeocollybia, Psilocybe (bluing ones), Anamika, Hebeloma, Alnicola, and Flammula cluster in a branch that is sister to the Stropharicaceae sensu strico. However, no formal familial change was made, and the Dict. classification does not follow this phylogeny (and they do state explicitly that they have taken into account the molecular results from that 2006 issue of Mycologia where several higher-level phylogenetics papers were published.) How to approach this on Wikipedia? About a year ago someone from the Matheny lab changed the families for these genera to Hymenogastraceae; I changed some of them back, because I wasn't convinced in some cases (i.e., the type species wasn't used in the analysis). Are we in limbo until the next phylogenetics paper comes out?
I think following either is fine. Looks like an editorial, not formal scientific choice on the part of Kirk & al., and either choice is phylogenetically valid, plus the study actually says (probably accounting for Kirk & al.'s approach): "Indeed Bayesian analyses [...] significantly support [...] the union of Hymenogastraceae and Strophariaceae s. str. A recent 25S rRNA only analysis suggested a rather inclusive treatment of the Strophariaceae."
Tapinellaceae 2 3 All three genera listed seem valid, and are given by the Dict itself as belonging in this family.
Typhulaceae 6 6
  1. ^ Descolea listed here and in Bolbitiaceae
    • Now removed from the Bolbitiaceae.
  2. ^ With two unlinked

Reached maximum completion[edit]

So I've just finished adding all I could, except for Physalacriaceae, Strophariaceae (incl. Hemigasteraceae) and Crepidotaceae (incl. Inocybaceae), for which (as said above) I'm reliant on you to establish lists of genera we are reasonably happy with. If Crepidotaceae ends up above 20 genera or so, I'll make it a separate list. Circéus (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of your Russulales idea, I'd make it a combined list for families and Genera, or at least consider it as a possibility. However, I notice the article clearly states Clavicorona ought to be in the Agaricales, but I can't find a family placement for it (except MycoBank, in the Tricholomataceae, but I don't trust it all that much). Circéus (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


Asa Gray[edit]

I thought I'd do some work on this article. It is in sad shape. Look at the references. There are several letters and encyclopedias used. Are these acceptable? Do we format them like any other web/whatever reference? On another note, I'll probably be listing Cucurbita at FAC later today. Thanks. 14:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

See Template:Cite encyclopedia for formatting the encyc. refs. I'd be careful about using the letters for anything other than quotes, as they are a primary source. For example, "In 1868 Gray had a year's leave of absence and visited Darwin in England – the first time they had met since they started their correspondence. Darwin had Gray in mind when he wrote that "It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent theist & an evolutionist."" The first part is from the initial summary, but who wrote that? This should be indicated in the citation. As for the format to cite letters, see Template:Cite letter. Sasata (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Cucurbita at FAC[edit]

It is finally there! Your input and review would be greatly appreciated. I can never thank you enough for helping me all you have. The main reason I got serious about editing was to improve this article. HalfGig talk 00:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Good stuff! I'll review it piecemeal over the next week. Sasata (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestion about Cucurbita synonyms[edit]

Hi, I had a look to see what could be said about synonyms at Cucurbita#Species and am at a bit of a loss because it is one of those situations of lumping and splitting that makes one wonder what possessed a particular person to make a new genus. Tropicos has some information such as that Tristemon is based on what is now Cucurbita pepo subsp. texana, Mellonia on Cucurbita melopepo L., Ozodycus on Cucurbita foetidissima, but for Sphenantha it doesn’t say anything helpful ... Perhaps it is in the spirit of your suggestion to add only the list of Linnaeus' originally included species? Would you be able to take a look at the latest version to see what you think? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hydnellum ferrugineum[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hydnellum[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hydnellum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Elsevier access[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Sasata. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Chris Troutman (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hydnellum[edit]

The article Hydnellum you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Hydnellum for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Cucurbita FAC[edit]

I've left you a couple questions there. Could you respond and then we can move onward. Many thanks for helping improve the article. HalfGig talk 22:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Cladogram[edit]

Xenarthra


Sloths 

Bradypus



Choloepus



Anteaters 

Cyclopes




Tamandua



Myrmecophaga





Armadillos 

Dasypus






Priodontes




Cabassous



Tolypeutes






Chaetophractus




Euphractus



Zaedyus








source

Hello, would you be able to create a cladogram of Xenarthra for giant anteater based on this 155.138.251.128 (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm here for the fungi. Sasata (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I got it. Here you go. – Maky « talk » 19:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The power of collaborative editing ... thanks, Maky. Sasata (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! 155.138.243.108 (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Long time![edit]

Just thought I'd say hi. I've been too miserably busy with college to do more than tinker on Wikipedia...lol, but still here. The cool news: I will graduate from the University of Massachusetts Lowell with a BA in Psychology in December! Anyway, drive-by hi, Sasata. And Happy New to you n' yours!! :-D -- Rcej (Robert)talk 16:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rcej! I knew you were upgrading, but did not know how close you were to finishing. So ... Jung or Freud? Sasata (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Erickson, with Freud to keep things interesting. I think Jung was assimilated by the Borg! lol -- Rcej (Robert)talk 06:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Isn't Freud largely discredited? Though I do admit his analyses of dreams keeps things interesting! HalfGig talk 19:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leccinum holopus[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Leccinum holopus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leccinum holopus[edit]

The article Leccinum holopus you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Leccinum holopus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Cucurbita FAC status[edit]

Hi. I know you're busy with WikiCup, but I was wondering if you could take a look at the Cucurbita article now and let us know at the FAC page what you think now. We've had two Supports since your last visit, but we still need image, source, and copyvio checks. We truly appreciate all the help you've given so far and enjoy working with you. HalfGig talk 22:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings[edit]

FYI, Marasmius siccus now exists, in case you wanted to fix any potential clumsiness of mine. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I added a tiny bit to this, plus the taxobox. Hope that's okay. HalfGig talk 00:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I like to display images prominently, kind of how this featured article does, so I did that, for what it's worth. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 12, 2015[edit]

Cas and Sasata: a summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. Does the article need more work before its day on the Main Page? I had to squeeze the summary down to about 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review of Robert Ridgway[edit]

I have two questions about your reviewer's comments on Robert Ridgway: (1) "there’s a "chapter ignored" parameter error in ref #43" -- I don't see the error message, and I don't see any cite that uses a chapter= parameter, so I'm not sure what needs to be fixed. I think we are talking about this cite, which I admit is a little odd: \{\{cite conference|booktitle=Proceedings of the High School Conference of November 23, 24 and 25, 1922|date=March 1923|publisher=University of Illinois|location=Urbana, Illinois|pages=112–117|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=wjMZAQAAIAAJ&dq=robert%20ridgway%20at%20home&pg=RA1-PA112#v=onepage&q=robert%20ridgway%20at%20home&f=false%7Cfirst=Ella R.|last=Dean|title=Robert Ridgway at Home|editor=High School Visitor's Office, ed|accessdate=4 March 2013\}\} (2) "accessdates are not required for links to printed publications" -- are we saying that accessdate= parameters should be removed for such cites, or that they're optional, i.e., not strictly necessary? Dgorsline (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Replied on GAR page. Sasata (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Dgorsline (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leccinum rugosiceps[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Leccinum rugosiceps you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leccinum rugosiceps[edit]

The article Leccinum rugosiceps you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Leccinum rugosiceps for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leccinum rugosiceps[edit]

The article Leccinum rugosiceps you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Leccinum rugosiceps for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 12, 2015, part 2[edit]

Hi Sasata, I'm getting some pressure to conform lead sections to TFA paragraphs, at least on important points. I hope you'll allow me to be a little bit professorial here. Your version seems ambiguous to me:

  • your version: "before it was transferred into the new genus Tylopilus on account of its pink spores."
  • my (wrong) version: "before it was transferred along with other pink-spore fungi into the new genus Tylopilus."

The presence of ambiguous cause-and-effect phrases (I'm looking at "on account of") was one of the 10 or so things we asked people to check for when preparing for Milhist's A-class, and it may be time to work up a similar checklist for TFA. Standing on its own, the most common meaning of your version is the one I gave ... that is, a pink-spore fungus should be classified with other pink-spore fungi ... but apparently that's wrong. Other common meanings of "on account of" in this context are:

  • tylopilus means "pink spores" in Greek (it doesn't)
  • for no particular reason, that is, they said "it has pink spores so let's put it in tylopilus" the same way one might say "it's tuesday, i think i'll put it in tylopilus"
  • the person who put it in the new genus had some very definite reason for thinking that a change in coloration ought to imply a different genus (but we're left wondering what that reason could be)
  • on account of something about its spores (which happened to be pink)

So, I'm asking for feedback on the idea of asking people to check their lead sections against something like WP:Checklist when the article is headed to TFA (in this case, the first point, on cause-and-effect words). Do you agree with my point that ambiguity is possible here? Can you rephrase? What do you think of something like WP:Checklist for TFA? - Dank (push to talk) 23:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize the potential ambiguity introduced by the phrase "on account of its pink spores". The reason is your 3rd; differently colored spores was sufficient justification for a new genus back then. How about we just leave that phrase out? It's explained sufficiently later in the article. Sasata (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Leaving it out sounds great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter[edit]

One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Australia Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Glutinoglossum glutinosum[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Glutinoglossum glutinosum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shiitake, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Shii and Chinquapin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Glutinoglossum glutinosum[edit]

The article Glutinoglossum glutinosum you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Glutinoglossum glutinosum for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for You![edit]

GA barnstar.png The Good Article Barnstar
For your contributions to bring Glutinoglossum glutinosum to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work!  — ₳aron 21:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 20, 2015[edit]

A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. Was there anything I left out of the summary that you'd like to see put back in? (In particular, "eastern North America, northern Africa, Europe, and Asia" seemed to cover "circumboreal", more or less, but tweak that if necessary.) I'd appreciate it if you could you check the article one more time before its day on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 00:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"... the most thorough and up-to-date source of information on this mushroom genus/species that is available on the web or in print", + pretty, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification[edit]

Hi Sasata,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Mycena overholtsii 333331.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 19, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-04-19. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Holliday junction/GA1[edit]

Sasata, you opened this review on March 7 and never returned, and have been away from Wikipedia editing for nearly three weeks at this point. With the concurrence of the nominator, I've put the nomination back into the reviewing pool in the hopes of finding someone who has more time for it, but I wanted to let you know that this had been done. I hope all is well. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Sasata. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 21:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello from the team at Featured article review![edit]

Cscr-featured.svg

We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.

Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.

Thanks for your help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tubaria rufofulva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cleland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter[edit]

C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy) is a long-period comet discovered on 17 August 2014 by Terry Lovejoy; and is one of several Featured Pictures worked up by India The Herald (submissions) during the second round.

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Belarus Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

TFAR[edit]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Psilocybe semilanceata --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification[edit]

Hi Sasata,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Amanita caesarea 54730.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 26, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-05-26. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Crisco 1492:, could you remove this from the POTD list? This image was nominated before it was known that this species does not occur in North America north of Mexico. The species pictured has a provisional name, Amanita banningiana, but this has not yet been formally published and so we don't yet have an article on it. As such, the image is caught in a taxonomic limbo … Sasata (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure, I'll remove it and add it to WP:POTD/Unused. If you want, feel free to nominate the image for delisting at WP:FPC (or we can wait until the taxonomic status is clear). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 3, 2015[edit]

Hey, I'm not sure if you saw this one that recently went through TFAR. I played around with the summary; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? I'd appreciate it if you could check the article one more time before its day on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 23:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Dank: I've made a few small alterations. Sasata (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks great, except ... how about stem (or some other word the readers will already know)? - Dank (push to talk) 19:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Technically, a "stem" refers to a plant structure and is incorrect usage of the term when referring to mushrooms (I've been changing stem to stipe whenever I come across them in mushroom articles, many of these instances written by me years ago...). However, it's in common usage and more laymen would understand it. Is it more important to promote correct usage or to use the more common but incorrect term? Would we call a tomato a vegetable on the front page? I'm not sure which is ideal in this case, but will leave it to your judgement. Sasata (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with avoiding "stem" if it looks wrong to you; what I'm wondering is whether we should say "stipe" at TFA. (I agree with you that "stipe" is preferable in the article text, in the right context.) "Mushroom stipes" gets only 2K ghits, so roughly speaking, no one says that, and very few readers will know what it means. For the moment, I'll delete it, until we can come up with a better word. (Also, I want to mention that possession and sale are illegal in much of the world; I'm doing some research before I settle on suggested text for the lead and for the TFA. So pulling "stipe" will give me a little more room to work with.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea ... the stipe isn't a remarkable feature of this particular mushroom and doesn't need to be in the blurb. Sasata (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Done ... I added "The possession or sale of psilocybin mushrooms is illegal in many countries." That article seems to be the most specific and well-sourced of the bunch (though I can't attest to accuracy). - Dank (push to talk) 00:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

TFAR again[edit]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Pinniped - had a request on my talk,--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)