User talk:Sasata

State of Genera lists in family articles

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)[reply]

Ok, give me a day or two. Sasata (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think we want three crucial things here:

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.
We list as many genera in the article as the number we have in text.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - Sound good to me. I will try to sort out Amylocorticiales, Crepidotaceae, Inocybaceae, and Chromocyphellaceae today. Sasata (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]

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)[reply] 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

^
Descolea listed here and in Bolbitiaceae
- Now removed from the Bolbitiaceae.
^ With two unlinked

Reached maximum completion

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

DYK for Gyroporus cyanescens

On 3 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gyroporus cyanescens, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the edible mushroom Gyroporus cyanescens (pictured) quickly turns dark blue if it is injured? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gyroporus cyanescens. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP Fungi in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Fungi for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Puccinia mariae-wilsoniae

On 8 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Puccinia mariae-wilsoniae, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the first documented specimens of the spring beauty rust were collected by a former mayor of Buffalo, New York? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Puccinia mariae-wilsoniae. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Sasata, thank you for promoting Giant eland to GA. Well, currently I am working on Dromedary, may be posting it soon for GAN. If you like you may help me with any literature you have. It is already becoming an informative article!--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Web of Knowledge search for Camelus dromedarius pulls up over 8000 sources; most of it is technical stuff that's not really appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Any way you could narrow the search to something you're specifically looking for? Sasata (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thurovia

Hi Sasata, I noticed you created the article Thurovia, which is tagged for merging with Thurovia triflora. They do appear to be duplicates, but they seem to make conflicting claims about what the genus name is. I'm happy to carry out this merge myself once the matter is cleared up. Feel free to reply to me here or to my request for help at WikiProject Plants. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the merge was appropriate. I added a source that confirms synonymy with Gutierrezia triflora. Sasata (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your fine assistance and knowledgeable edits in ecology!!! Thompsma (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mark! I left some thoughts about further things to mull over before FAC on the talk page. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article request

Hi Sasata! I was wondering if you would be able to send me the chapter on cabbage from Transgenic Crops, Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry, as you did with lettuce? Cabbage is my new project, after the success of taking lettuce to FA! It's still in sandbox form at the moment, but I'm hoping to get it moved to the mainspace within the next week or so, hopefully in better shape (i.e., more complete) than the lettuce one was when I moved it! Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Received your e-mail - thank you very much! Dana boomer (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Zeus (fungus)

On 14 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zeus (fungus), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Zeus was discovered on Mount Olympus? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zeus (fungus). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last fungus

Hello,

thanks for your work on Barbeyella minutissima!. I will begin to work on the probably last fungus translated from a German featured version, but I am not sure what is the best time to do that in regard to WikiCup. Do you want me to translate it during the last round or the current? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 19:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime that works for you is ok with me; I'm more or less done my vacation and back on a regular editing schedule. When you go live with the last article I can copyedit/expand it within a day or two. Sasata (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see a quirky hook for Tricholoma vaccinum

Were you going to nom him already? Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing special suggested itself to me ... whaddya have in mind? Sasata (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and see ;) Its not gonna be the hook Taj Mahal, though. lol Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Boletus curtisii

On 25 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Boletus curtisii, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that spraying the bright yellow mushroom Boletus curtisii with methanol will make the color disappear? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boletus curtisii. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Image query

That's really quite regrettable; we can get around potential problems like this with license reviews, but I'm not sure that there's much that can be done here. Of course, I have no doubt that they were released, but there's potentially a dangerous precedent to be set. With the featured picture, it seems like a fair guess that people checked the licensing, and the fact JJ uploaded his own version shows that he will have checked... But the other one is definitely problematic. I note Rcej didn't even make a generic "licenses check out" comment in his GA review. Also, I've checked the Internet archive, and there's nothing there. I think contacting the authors may be the best option- see if they are willing to "release" the images, or at least confirm that they did once release them. Without that, I'm not sure that this would get through FAC, as, otherwise, all we have are vague assurances that it was probably checked. Sorry I don't have some magic way around this! J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think, if email is not an option, the best way would be to have some kind of centralised discussion somewhere (perhaps on Commons) where you may be able to get some kind of consensus that the images are OK- a common sense versus procedure-type situation. One possible venue could even be at FPC. J Milburn (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your requests

Looks like that issue of the Naturaliste is available at the botanical garden (which is more practical for me than the university library, as I can edit at the former, but not the latter). I'll try to drop there this week (also I'll give Phallus indusiatus a look asap). Circéus (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, for quebec distribution you can probably rely on Mycoquebec.org (though it's in French). It's got input behind the scenes by professional/published mycologists, and even offline discussion with experts outside Quebec, so i consider easily as, if not more reliable than MushroomObserver.com Circéus (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've let JMilburn know about your opinion, and will see what he thinks. Sasata (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I've started with a pass at the references, and I'd like to know which style should I standardize the short refs to? "Doe (year), page" or "Doe year, page"? Circéus (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The former is what I've done with previous FA's ... thanks! Sasata (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tricholoma vaccinum

On 28 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tricholoma vaccinum, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the fuzztop mushroom was named for being "cow-colored"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tricholoma vaccinum. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ding

I've emailed you. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Boletellus russellii

Hello! Your submission of Boletellus russellii at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe it's not butter!

If you'll 5x Boletus regius, we have double DYK: " ...that the butter-foot bolete (pictured) and red-capped butter bolete are in the same section?" Its more work for you...cool! ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 04:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No jokes about butter, it might spread. Gimme a coupla days, will see what I can find out about B. regius. Sasata (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL...boo!! Rcej (Robert) – talk 10:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done – note I changed the common name of B. regius in the hook. Not the most earth-shattering of hooks, but it's better than anything I could come up with! Sasata (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Podoserpula

Hello! Your submission of Podoserpula at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Chris857 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Pluteus nevadensis

On 3 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pluteus nevadensis, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the fungus Pluteus nevadensis was named after the Colima volcano? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pluteus nevadensis. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mycena atkinsoniana

On 4 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mycena atkinsoniana, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the mushroom Mycena atkinsoniana will "bleed" yellow-orange juice when injured? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mycena atkinsoniana. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Engleromyces sinensis

On 5 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Engleromyces sinensis, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that although collected in 1958, the fungus Engleromyces sinensis was not described as a new species until 52 years later? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Engleromyces sinensis. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cortinarius camphoratus

On 5 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cortinarius camphoratus, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the odor of the mushroom Cortinarius camphoratus (pictured) has been likened to old goats, burnt horn, and sweaty feet? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cortinarius camphoratus. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barbeyella minutissima

When I took on the review of Barbeyella minutissima, I expected that the person who responded would be Kürbis who nominated the article for GA. I am well aware that you know a great deal more about slime moulds than me and are much more experienced in writing GA and FA articles, so that making suggestions for improvement is rather like a penguin providing lessons on flight to a seagull! So, if you disagree with things I suggest, you had better take no notice of what I say. Although I have not yet considered the other GA criteria, I am not expecting to find much amiss with the article.

Would you consider taking on the GA review of Amphibian? I am keen to get this started because I have further plans for the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Kürbis kindly agreed to let me tag on to his GAN after I found some additional sources and expanded the article. I don't really know a lot about slime moulds, but at any rate, all of your suggestions for prose improvements have been helpful. I will consider taking on the amphibian GAN, but should really finish off another one I've started first, and I should also really complete my GAN of malaria, before I exhaust the kind reviewer's patience :) I am a fan of amphibians (worked a bit on Mark's Thompson's article Long-toed salamander to help bring it to GA), and will take the review in a week or so if no-one else gets there first. Sasata (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that would be helpful. I'll carry on with this slime mould review when you have decided whether to add some background information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

bioluminescent fungi

I'll be happy to have a look through it. Probably not before tomorrow or Wednesday though. I'm slightly more busy than usual this week. Circéus (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having pored over it a little (focusing mostly on the prose part): intro needs a complete rewrite and split for a "bioluminescence in fungi" intro section. An exemple of a serious problem: it contradict itself right off by saying that biolum provides antioxidant protection and then stating that "the function of fungal bioluminescence has not been established" (this being because there's a failure to distinguish the biolum phenomenon and the biochemical process that causes it). I'll do a rewrite myself. In the meantime, I strongly suspect that the ref for the Lucentipes lineage comment is second hand (Oliviera & al. doesn't seem to include much phylogenetic info but I can't see more than a few graphs and the abstract), so can you try and dig up the ref, assuming it's not to something in press? Circéus (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they source this statement to Matheny et al. (2006). Let me know if you'd like any of the refs emailed to you. Sasata (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'd like to see Oliviera & al., 'cause Matheny has nothing to do with either taxa. I'm going to assume it's cited to indicate the clade is not named, not to any paper that established it since Desjardins & al. (2010) has this in the intro (emphasis mine, author citations removed for legibility): "and an unnamed lineage (including Gerronema viridilucens and Mycena lucentipes; Perry and Desjardin unpubl)." Circéus (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment. Paper sent. Sasata (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've chosen to work on it in my sandbox to avoid disrupting the article. As to Bisporella citrina, the writing could be improved a little, but is basically accurate. Circéus (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for checking the disco. Sasata (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On deeper looking, we have some serious taxonomic problems. We cannot seriously list species in genera (Dictyopanus) that the encyclopedia does not recognize and that may not be considered good taxa. I have hardly found anything about those two taxon for the last 40 years! Burdsall & Miller (Mycotaxon 7(3):511-514. 1978.) notes that the type of D. foliicolus seems lost. And the name was never transferred (as far as I can tell) to Panellus. Similarly we mention Prunulus, but don't list any species from that genera, while a bunch of other genera (Dictyopanus, Filoboletus, lampteromyces, Nothopanus, Pleurotus and Poromycena) are in the list, but not assigned to any lineage. That looks pretty sloppy for an article aimed at Featured status. Circéus (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Boletellus russellii

On 9 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Boletellus russellii, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... the spores of the mushroom Boletellus russellii are grooved and furrowed like its stem? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boletellus russellii. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mycena atkinsoniana

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Mycena atkinsoniana 60804.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Julia\^talk 13:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-09-10/WikiProject report

Hey, have you seen this? Seems a shame not to have you chipping in when you're the most prolific editor in the project! J Milburn (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but I prefer to keep a low profile. Sasata (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Endogone

On 10 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Endogone, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that species in the fungal genus Endogone are important in the ecology of plant succession in sand dunes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Endogone. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Boletus auripes

On 12 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Boletus auripes, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the butter-foot bolete (pictured) and red-capped butter bolete are in the same section? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Boletus regius

On 12 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Boletus regius, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the butter-foot bolete (pictured) and red-capped butter bolete are in the same section? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giant eland

Hi, Sasata. This is about the article Giant eland, which you promoted as GA. Now I have time, and can start work on it to make it an FA. I would be glad to have your help, as this shall be my first FAC attempt. If you have time (I see you are busy the whole year with the WikiCup championship!) then you can guide me with this. --Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to help you out. I recommend submitting the article to peer review, to get more eyes on the prose. I'll do another lit search search soon to ensure there's nothing important that's been missed. Sasata (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albaflavenone

Hi, here it is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Albaflavenone.png

Please tell me if there is an error with it, I will change it :) -- YOSF0113 (talk - contributions) 15:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow that was fast! Thanks very much, it will go in the article Phallus indusiatus that I hope to submit to FAC soon. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Podoserpula

On 13 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Podoserpula, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Podoserpula (pictured) has a unique form of fruit body not known in any other fungi? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Podoserpula. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Parasola auricoma

On 14 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Parasola auricoma, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Parasola auricoma mushrooms are short-lived, typically lasting only a few hours? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Parasola auricoma. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for List of bioluminescent fungi

On 15 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of bioluminescent fungi, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the night-light mushroom is one of over 70 species of bioluminescent fungi? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of bioluminescent fungi. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mycena chlorophos

On 15 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mycena chlorophos, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the night-light mushroom is one of over 70 species of bioluminescent fungi? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Agaricus bernardii

On 16 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Agaricus bernardii, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the edible mushroom Agaricus bernardii is often found along roads that have been de-iced with salt? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Agaricus bernardii. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Ibogaine

Could you respond on the GA nomination? ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 19:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re GAN Podoserpula

Hi,

I've reviewed your nomination and made a few comments at Talk:Podoserpula/GA1.

Temporarily on hold. Wonderful fungi!

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Colus hirudinosus

On 19 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colus hirudinosus, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the foul-smelling greenish-brown slime in the lattice of the fungus Colus hirudinosus attracts insects that help disperse its spores? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Colus hirudinosus. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again

Thank you for your long-term committment to the good article nomination of malaria. I really think we're making great progress on improving the quality of this important article. Let me know if you think I'm being overly nit-picky. I guess it's entirely possible I'm bringing up things that aren't typically dealt with in a GA review, but I figure we've got a good thing going. Let me know if it could be improved. And still, I don't mind the slow going, but I can accelerate things if you'd like. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure if I could have gotten a better reviewer :) It's an important article, and I don't mind taking the time to get it right. My wife (a senior resident) has lined up a couple of subject-matter experts who've graciously offered to review it when it's ready (probably after peer review, but before FAC), so I'd like it to be in the best shape possible before then. And thank-you for putting up with my slow responses; I try to juggle a lot here on the 'pedia (including my time-consuming guilty pleasure), and I sometimes have to do quite a bit of background reading before I feel confident enough to make a change in the malaria article (I don't really have any particular expertise in the subject, just a science background). Sasata (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, and thanks. And I was going to offer to try and line up a subject matter expert for you too... But the offer stands. =) Once we get to that point, I'd actually like to try for you, because it could establish some new contact avenues for me or help start a useful avenue for high-quality medical articles to receive feedback on Wikipedia in general. Biosthmors (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me, the more eyes, the better! Sasata (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK review concerns

Hi Sasata, Ive tried to address the concerns you raised on my nomination here: Template:Did you know nominations/Eucommia jeffersonensis, Eucommia rolandii When you get a chance would you be willing to recheck the articles and nomination? Thanks!--Kev min § 20:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK criteria

I was thinking about DYK because I just found Medicines for Malaria Venture, which is unsourced. Now if someone completely rewrites the article, and sources it well with one edit then they don't meet the eligibility criteria. But could that same content qualify under 1. (d? I guess it would have to be done in user space, and then one would have to find an administrator to speedy delete before a move. And the admin would have to see that it obviously improves the article. Or, can someone make an edit to "chop it", for a minute, to remove everything but a sentence that demonstrates notability (because the content is problematic and unsourced WP:V) and then post the rewritten version? Then can they get an expansion. There's gotta be a way to reward people for completely rewriting and sourcing articles that clean up. Maybe at Wikipedia:Dyk#Eligibility_criteria under New there could be a sentence like, "Completely rewriting an article that previously met the criteria for a good article quickfail are also considered 'new'." Just wondering about this. I'm sure some aspects of what I'm saying have been discussed before, but I'd rather ask you than dig for a long time, if you don't mind. Biosthmors (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a few cases like this discussed at DYK over the years. Expanding and resourcing existing poorly-sourced (or completely non-sourced, in this case) content, unfortunately, doesn't qualify for any exemptions. I see you've placed a verification tag on the article. If no-one responds in about a week, our policies allow you rip out the unsourced text, and then you can plop in your userspace draft (as you proposed; I've seen this suggestion given by DYK regulars when posed a similar question on the talk page). Or, if your draft ends up being over 13095 characters (or thereabouts) it would qualify anyway. You could suggest amending the eligibility criteria on the talk page, but I've seen similar suggestions shot down in the past (for better or worse, the emphasis is on new content). Sasata (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Well then maybe I don't want to change any eligibility criteria. Maybe what would be best is just adding some prose and clarifing the meaning (even if most of the text is in a note at the bottom of the page). I want others to know there is an avenue to get a DYK for articles like this, because it wasn't clear to me. And FYI I don't think I'll end up rewriting this article, but knowing I could get a DYK for doing so makes it more likely. Am I understanding you right, and does the approach I describe sound reasonable (in that you may support something like this or you think others would)? Biosthmors (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think your approach is reasonable, and would be supported by (at least some) DYK regulars. Here's a couple of links to somewhat related discussions from the past year: 1, 2 (you could probably find more by searching the archives). Sasata (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

Hi Sasata,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Cortinarius vanduzerensis 134617.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 21, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-09-21. —howcheng {chat} 17:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for all your input at The Hunger Games FAC, Sasata. Your suggestions were very helpful and even taught me something about proper sentence construction. The article wouldn't be as good as it is now without your help! Evanh2008 ^{(talk\|contribs)} 22:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! Sasata (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TFA considered

I suggested Armillaria luteobubalina to be considered for TFA, please feel free to join the discussion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next: same thing for Phallus indusiatus, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)

Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Update for: WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)

Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mechanics of Oscar Pistorius' Running Blades

Hi, Sasata. I added citations to this article per your request: Template:Did you know nominations/The Mechanics of Oscar Pistorius' Running Blades. Hopefully it's now good to go. Pkeets (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malaria GAN since May 2012?

Hi Sasata. I notice that Malaria has been on the GA Nom list since May ... quite a long 2-week period. Further, the GA review page doesn't seem to contain a GA review.

Should we remove Malaria from the GA nom list now? all the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The review is in progress. Thanks for your concern. Sasata (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bisporella citrina

On 24 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bisporella citrina, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that yellow fairy cups (pictured) are one of the most common small discos? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bisporella citrina. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go Cup Canada!

Wow...very nice! ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 09:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive! It's not a record, but it will appear on the leaderboard if selected. J Milburn (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I've got a few multihooks already that aren't on that board. Anyway, I'm prepping a couple more that will blow this octahook out of the water (if I can get my lazy ass in gear in the next few weeks). Sasata (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hands Up, Or I'll Shoot

Thank you very much for your work in checking the article! Greatly appreciated! Bahavd Gita (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Xylobolus frustulatus

Hello! Your submission of Xylobolus frustulatus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Secretlondon (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Entoloma mathinnae

On 27 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Entoloma mathinnae, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Tasmanian mushroom Entoloma mathinnae is named after a 19th-century indigenous Australian girl? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Entoloma mathinnae. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your significant contributions in creating all of the new truffle species articles. It's a noteworthy compendium of contributions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! However, there's quite a ways to go before Wikipedia's coverage of truffle species could be considered even tolerably adequate. Sasata (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lepiota ananya

On 1 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lepiota ananya, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Lepiota mushroom species L. ananya, L. anupama, L. babruka, L. babruzalka, L. harithaka, L. nirupama, L. shveta, and L. zalkavritha all have names derived from Sanskrit? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lepiota ananya. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lepiota anupama

On 1 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lepiota anupama, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Lepiota mushroom species L. ananya, L. anupama, L. babruka, L. babruzalka, L. harithaka, L. nirupama, L. shveta, and L. zalkavritha all have names derived from Sanskrit? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lepiota babruka

On 1 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lepiota babruka, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Lepiota mushroom species L. ananya, L. anupama, L. babruka, L. babruzalka, L. harithaka, L. nirupama, L. shveta, and L. zalkavritha all have names derived from Sanskrit? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lepiota babruzalka

On 1 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lepiota babruzalka, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Lepiota mushroom species L. ananya, L. anupama, L. babruka, L. babruzalka, L. harithaka, L. nirupama, L. shveta, and L. zalkavritha all have names derived from Sanskrit? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lepiota harithaka

On 1 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lepiota harithaka, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Lepiota mushroom species L. ananya, L. anupama, L. babruka, L. babruzalka, L. harithaka, L. nirupama, L. shveta, and L. zalkavritha all have names derived from Sanskrit? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lepiota nirupama

On 1 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lepiota nirupama, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Lepiota mushroom species L. ananya, L. anupama, L. babruka, L. babruzalka, L. harithaka, L. nirupama, L. shveta, and L. zalkavritha all have names derived from Sanskrit? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lepiota shveta

On 1 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lepiota shveta, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Lepiota mushroom species L. ananya, L. anupama, L. babruka, L. babruzalka, L. harithaka, L. nirupama, L. shveta, and L. zalkavritha all have names derived from Sanskrit? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lepiota zalkavritha

On 1 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lepiota zalkavritha, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Lepiota mushroom species L. ananya, L. anupama, L. babruka, L. babruzalka, L. harithaka, L. nirupama, L. shveta, and L. zalkavritha all have names derived from Sanskrit? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Boletus abruptibulbus

On 1 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Boletus abruptibulbus, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Boletus abruptibulbus, Leccinum arenicola, and Phylloporus arenicola are the only North American Boletaceae mushrooms that grow in coastal sand dunes? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Leccinum arenicola

On 1 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leccinum arenicola, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Boletus abruptibulbus, Leccinum arenicola, and Phylloporus arenicola are the only North American Boletaceae mushrooms that grow in coastal sand dunes? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Phylloporus arenicola

On 1 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Phylloporus arenicola, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Boletus abruptibulbus, Leccinum arenicola, and Phylloporus arenicola are the only North American Boletaceae mushrooms that grow in coastal sand dunes? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cortinarius selection

I have reviewed and approved your eight article Cortinarius DYK nomination though I had some reservations about the articles. Thinking about it afterwards, you only stated that you had reviewed five articles, but never mind.

Would you care to comment on my Frog FAC. I nominated the article a week ago but it is suffering from lack of interest. I hope it is in better shape than Bivalvia originally was because I think I have learned from your helpful guidance in that FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reviewing the hook. Per here: "H4: Where hooks have more than one new or expanded article, there is no consensus whether an article-for-article or hook-for-hook QPQ is required. An article-for-article review is encouraged, but a hook-for-hook review is acceptable." In general, though, for my multihooks I've been reviewing more to help with throughput. As I'm sure you understand, October will be a busy month, but I will certainly review frog if it hasn't passed already by the end of October ;) (p.s. you may get more reviewers inclined to look at your nom if you review some of the other candidates at FAC) Sasata (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I quite understand your point of view. I'm not sure how competent I am at reviewing other FACs, and as you say, detailed scrutiny takes time, something that is in short supply this month. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Peziza domiciliana

On 2 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peziza domiciliana, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the domicile cup fungus degrades wooden historical monuments in Moldavia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Peziza domiciliana. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

What you say is true. He promised to contribute further to Frog and then went off on a field trip, then moved house and had no internet connection, etc. I told him I intended to name him as co-nominator and he did not object. If you would like to jointly nominate Amphibian with me I could withdraw it from FAC now. However, time is running out with regard to the Cup, and it would need to be put up for FAC again in the next few days, so you would have to do some work on it pretty soon. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I obviously have a conflict of interest here, so I don't want to unduly influence your decisions. I could work on the amphibian article, but I have another mushroom article ready for FAC as soon as my current nom is finished. (... and I have to do some more reviews too; I try to do 3–4 thorough reviews for every nom I submit but am lagging behind now ...) Perhaps it would be a good idea to inform FAC director GrahamColm of the background situation and see what his opinion is? Sasata (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will do what you suggest and refer the matter to GrahamColm. However, if you do choose to join me nominating Amphibian I would be pleased, and you could still do your mushroom article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind working on the amphibian article with you if the time frame weren't so compressed. There's no way I could contribute in a few days the work you have put into the article in the past few months, and adding my name to the FAC wouldn't be justified (my original question was more of a hypothetical "what if" to illustrate why I thought adding Mark's name to the Frog FAC was unwarranted for a dozen or so edits and some PR commentary). I wish you success with the amphibian FAC (and I will review it when all this is over), but just don't think it's right to have two simultaneous FACs on a very thin pretense (i.e., following the letter, and not the spirit of the dual nom/co-nom policy). From past experience(s), I really hope to avoid final-round drama in this year's WikiCup! Sasata (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I have been in communication with GrahamColm and the Amphibian FAC has been deleted. I knew that nominating Frog in that way was a bit "iffy". However, I am disappointed, as you stated on my talk page "would you mind then if I worked on either the amphibian or the frog article for a few days myself and add myself to the FAC?" and it was on this basis that I withdrew it. You now seem to have changed your mind about this but I would point out that success with Amphibian would probably score you many more points than your mushroom article. And as for equality of edits, that is not necessary for a joint nomination. I was involved in editing Pelican in a minor way and Casliber offered to include my name as FAC co-nominee for that article but I declined, not needing extra points in that earlier round. :) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equality of edits may not be needed by the letter of the rules, but I wouldn't want my name on the FAC unless I was responsible for a significant portion of the work. I will work on the article (as we discussed before, I'm a salamander fan), but I doubt I'll be able to do enough in the next short while to warrant a co-nom. Sasata (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I shall be thankful when I can stop doing all these pesky DYKs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2012 September newsletter

We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. Grapple X (submissions) currently leads, followed by Sasata (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cortinarius argyrionus

On 3 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cortinarius argyrionus, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the truffle-like species C. argyrionus, C. basorapulus, C. caesibulga, C. cinereoroseolus, C. kaputarensis, C. maculobulga, C. nebulobrunneus, and C. sinapivelus, all newly described in 2010, are known only from New South Wales? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cortinarius basorapulus

On 3 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cortinarius basorapulus, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the truffle-like species C. argyrionus, C. basorapulus, C. caesibulga, C. cinereoroseolus, C. kaputarensis, C. maculobulga, C. nebulobrunneus, and C. sinapivelus, all newly described in 2010, are known only from New South Wales? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cortinarius caesibulga

On 3 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cortinarius caesibulga, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the truffle-like species C. argyrionus, C. basorapulus, C. caesibulga, C. cinereoroseolus, C. kaputarensis, C. maculobulga, C. nebulobrunneus, and C. sinapivelus, all newly described in 2010, are known only from New South Wales? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cortinarius cinereoroseolus

On 3 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cortinarius cinereoroseolus, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the truffle-like species C. argyrionus, C. basorapulus, C. caesibulga, C. cinereoroseolus, C. kaputarensis, C. maculobulga, C. nebulobrunneus, and C. sinapivelus, all newly described in 2010, are known only from New South Wales? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cortinarius kaputarensis

On 3 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cortinarius kaputarensis, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the truffle-like species C. argyrionus, C. basorapulus, C. caesibulga, C. cinereoroseolus, C. kaputarensis, C. maculobulga, C. nebulobrunneus, and C. sinapivelus, all newly described in 2010, are known only from New South Wales? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cortinarius maculobulga

On 3 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cortinarius maculobulga, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the truffle-like species C. argyrionus, C. basorapulus, C. caesibulga, C. cinereoroseolus, C. kaputarensis, C. maculobulga, C. nebulobrunneus, and C. sinapivelus, all newly described in 2010, are known only from New South Wales? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cortinarius nebulobrunneus

On 3 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cortinarius nebulobrunneus, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the truffle-like species C. argyrionus, C. basorapulus, C. caesibulga, C. cinereoroseolus, C. kaputarensis, C. maculobulga, C. nebulobrunneus, and C. sinapivelus, all newly described in 2010, are known only from New South Wales? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cortinarius sinapivelus

On 3 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cortinarius sinapivelus, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the truffle-like species C. argyrionus, C. basorapulus, C. caesibulga, C. cinereoroseolus, C. kaputarensis, C. maculobulga, C. nebulobrunneus, and C. sinapivelus, all newly described in 2010, are known only from New South Wales? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - October 2012

Delivered October 3, 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter any longer, please remove your name from this list.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Xylobolus frustulatus

On 3 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Xylobolus frustulatus, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that ceramic parchment grows on rotting wood? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Xylobolus frustulatus. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Descolea listed here and in Bolbitiaceae
Now removed from the Bolbitiaceae.

[2] Now removed from the Bolbitiaceae.

[2] With two unlinked

[asof-3] As of October 2, 2012 at 19:05 (UTC).

[4] Before quick-failing the article, verify that one of the several referencing templates is correctly placed at the bottom of the article. If the template is not placed, try to place it to see if references are displayed. If this proof returns no references, then proceed to quick-failing.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]