User talk:Sasata

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sasata (talk | contribs) at 16:57, 1 December 2014 (→‎WP:RX: downloaded). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Reminders to myself

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:

  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)[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
  1. ^ Descolea listed here and in Bolbitiaceae
    • Now removed from the Bolbitiaceae.
  2. ^ 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]

Your GA nomination of Boletopsis nothofagi

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Boletopsis nothofagi you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Seppi333 -- Seppi333 (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Celebration time

The coloured skies award for lighting the way
Hi Sasata, some metalloid-enabled fireworks as a way of thanking you for
your help here wrt to the metalloid article, recently promoted to FA. Please let me
know if I could return the investment.  Sandbh (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FA congratulations

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Morchella rufobrunnea to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon (either on a particular date or on any available date), please nominate it at the requests page. If you'd like to see an FA appear on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with about 1,307 articles waiting their turn at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 18:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page appearance: Boletus luridus

This is a note to let the main editors of Boletus luridus know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 20, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 20, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Boletus luridus mushroom

Boletus luridus, commonly known as the lurid bolete, is a fungus of the bolete family, found in deciduous woodlands on chalky soils in Asia, Europe, and eastern North America. Fruit bodies arise in summer and autumn and may be abundant. It is a solid bolete with an olive-brown cap up to 20 cm (8 in) in diameter, with small reddish pores on the underside. The stout ochre stem reaches dimensions of 8–14 cm (3–6 in) tall and 1–3 cm (0.4–1.2 in) wide, and is patterned with a reddish meshwork. Like several other red-pored boletes, it stains blue when bruised or cut. Though edible when cooked, it can cause gastric upset when eaten raw and can be confused with the poisonous Boletus satanas. Hence some guidebooks recommend avoiding consumption altogether. Boletus luridus has been implicated in causing adverse reactions when eaten with alcohol similar to those caused by the compound coprine, though laboratory testing has not revealed any evidence of coprine in the mushroom. Boletus luridus is mycorrhizal, forming a symbiotic association with deciduous trees such as oak, birch and beech, and has been found to have a growth-enhancing effect with conifers in experiments. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed review

Hi Sasata, Just letting you know my laptop broke so my capacity to do any substantial editing/reviewing on WP is somewhat limited at the moment. I should be finished with my review sometime this week. Sorry for the delay! Best, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright; luckily, there is no deadline! Sasata (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just got a new working laptop, so I'll finish my review by tomorrow at the latest. Sorry for the extra week delay! There may be no deadline, but I still feel I have an informal obligation to complete the reviews I take on, especially if they're for someone who has done me a big favor in the past. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Boletopsis nothofagi

The article Boletopsis nothofagi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Boletopsis nothofagi 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 Seppi333 -- Seppi333 (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Add sources
Achaemenid Empire
Phylloporus pelletieri
Acquiring bank
Mushroom hunting
Ring-tailed cat
Psilocybe villarrealiae
Cleanup
American mink
Lambda phage
Paleo-Tethys Ocean
Expand
Boletus
Gray fox
Fistulina hepatica
Unencyclopaedic
Armillaria
Rhinarium
Fungiculture
Wikify
Constructal law
Maximum parsimony (phylogenetics)
Microsatellite
Orphan
Mniopetalum
Pleurotopsis
Phaeotellus
Merge
Mycorrhiza
Polypore
Wenlock (Silurian)
Stub
South American fox
Southern spotted skunk
Ferret-badger
Phlox paniculata
Haplotrichum
Pardine genet

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Volvopluteus michiganensis

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Volvopluteus michiganensis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Seppi333 -- Seppi333 (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boletus fechtneri - Butyriboletus fechtneri

Hi, I think these articles are duplicite: Boletus fechtneri - Butyriboletus fechtneri. Regards --Xth-Floor (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The former is now redirected to the latter, thanks. Sasata (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. There's one more discrepancy. B. fuscoroseus and B. pseudoregius are listed as two species, but they are just synonyms. Arora et al. used the name Butyriboletus pseudoregius, but Vizzini et al. changed it to Butyriboletus fuscoroseus, because Boletus fuscoroseus is older name and has priority. Best regards. --Xth-Floor (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not able to confirm this; Vizzini does not mention this synonymy in Index Fungorum no. 162 (nor is it in subsequent updates). Do you have a source? Sasata (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I found it in Assyov (2012). Thanks for the heads-up, I will make the appropriate changes soon. Sasata (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Than you very much. It was also explained in Šutara et al. (2014), where B. fuscoroseus was neotypified (detailed explanation, why the name B. fuscoroseus has priority, is described on pages 29-30). --Xth-Floor (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Engleromyces sinensis

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Engleromyces sinensis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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) 14:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Engleromyces sinensis

The article Engleromyces sinensis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Engleromyces sinensis 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) 19:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curve-billed Thrasher

Hello. I've made amends to most of the suggestions/corrections that you had suggested (and some of my own), but the article is that far away from the GA status (I didn't realize how awful and rusty I've become with article writing on Wikipedia until I read what needed to be done) feel free to rescind the GA nomination. Thanks for reading, and contact me on my page whenever you get the chance! LeftAire (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Butyriboletus

Gatoclass (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Butyriboletus appendiculatus

Gatoclass (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese serow

Hi. I was going over the pointers you left me from the Japanese serow GA review (I haven't touched the article in a while). You said that a Web of Knowledge search turned up more than 400 articles—I'm probably using it wrong, but I'm getting no hits whatsover, whatever search term I use. Is there a magic spell I need to chant or something? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using the Latin name (and spelling it correctly)? If that's not working for you, then I'm not sure what's going on, maybe you have some filter turned on? Alternately, try a google scholar search: over 1100 hits. Sasata (talk)
I was copy-pasting the names to make sure I didn't misspell them. Thanks for the Google Scholar link. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Scotland Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to Florida 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Bartošovice v Orlických horách Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. 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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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 · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why so sceptic on sour cream? (Amantia Smithiana)

Why so sceptic on sour cream? You can't find any name Smithiana over the world. Try this: https://www.google.com/search?q=-amanita%20%2Bsmithiana Seems I'm right? 94.140.231.246 (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology is already sourced in the article. Your conclusion is original research. Sasata (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rule says: "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable , published source." There are no such source for true explnation of surname Smithiana. And there can be no such source. Of course I could prove my point, but it would took 4 years of direct verbal explanation, 6 hours every day, in form of dialog.

Еtymology is already sourced in the article, but it does not explain origins of the name. You can't even challenge it.

So just admit direct knowledge.

I saw dozens of published resources that push fake. If I challenge Cambridge University, you will have to erase 90% of WikipediA. 93.190.204.6 (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the source: "ETYMOLOGY: Named in honour of Dr. A. H. Smith, Ann Arbor.". If you wish to discuss the etymology of the name "Smith", that should be at the article Smith (surname). Sasata (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Calbovista

Gatoclass (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Calbovista

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Calbovista you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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) 12:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again

featured pictures of funghi
Thank you for showing us in consistent quality the rich hidden world of funghi, in words and excellent images, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (28 February 2009, 23 April 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, you were the 175th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Volvopluteus michiganensis

The article Volvopluteus michiganensis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Volvopluteus michiganensis 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 Seppi333 -- Seppi333 (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xeromphalina setulipes

Hi Sasata- my Xeromphalina setulipes is due on the MP on 14 Aug. Google Scholar is suggesting that there are a couple of articles which may mention the species that I don't have access to- I suspect they're just citations, but would you mind taking a look and seeing if there is anything worth adding? (I'm assuming you have access to both.) "Amplistroma longicollis, a new species and its anamorph state described and sequenced from Europe" and The Xerulaceae (Basidiomycetes), a family with sarcodimitic tissues" are the articles in question. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JM, the first paper doesn't have anything worth adding (it's mentioned as an example of another fungus recently described from Spain) and the second is a false positive (was published in 1987). Sasata (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking. Shame on me for not noticing the date of the second paper! J Milburn (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Have a look – no more species redlinks! Sasata (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Equus cladogram

Would you be able to create a cladgram of the living equines? The graph can be found here. LittleJerry (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this year I'm spending my limited time here working on fungi. Sasata (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to GA review Rodent? LittleJerry (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cymatoderma caperatum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mont.. 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) 09:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive

Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hyphomycetes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sporocarp. 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) 09:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Donkioporia
added a link pointing to Poria
Ischnoderma resinosum
added a link pointing to Taxonomy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Cup

Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2014 August newsletter

The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:

  1. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
  2. Scotland Casliber (submissions) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
  3. Nepal Czar (submissions) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
  4. Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
  5. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
  6. Florida 12george1 (submissions) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
  7. Colorado Sturmvogel 66 (submissions), the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
  8. Canada Bloom6132 (submissions), the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.

We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists. Herm Matty.007 (submissions), Ohio ThaddeusB (submissions), United States WikiRedactor (submissions), Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), Greece Yellow Evan (submissions), Portugal Prism (submissions) and Bartošovice v Orlických horách Cloudz679 (submissions) have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.

There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. As ever, 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 · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

chess

I saw that you edited many times Magnus Carlsen. If you are interested in chess, maybe try the demo that prepared.

I attach the games of the World Chess Championship 2012. In the English wikipedia you had to write the games down, add diagrams and so on, on the Hebrew wikipedia there is a fantastic tool that was developped two years ago - have a look at the demo: HE:משתמש:Yoavd/chessdemo.


I am interested in your view. You can scroll down all the games, then the fast games. --Yoavd (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles - GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup

WikiProject Good articles is holding a new competition, the GA Cup, from October 1, 2014 - March 28, 2015. The Cup will be based on reviewing Good article nominations; for each review, points will be awarded with bonuses for older nominations, longer articles and comprehensive reviews. All participants will start off in one group and the highest scoring participants will go through to the second round. At the moment six rounds are planned, but this may change based on participant numbers.

Some of you may ask: what is the purpose for a competition of this type? Currently, there is a backlog of about 500 unreviewed Good article nominations, almost an all time high. It is our hope that we can decrease the backlog in a fun way, through friendly competition.

Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors! Sign-ups will be open until October 15, 2014 so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the four judges.

Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To receive future GA Cup newsletter, please add your name to our mailing list.

Reverting me

I doubt that reverting my nomination of Carrot for GA was a good thing for you to do. Your action seems very high-handed to me. Would it not have been better, when someone took up the review, to add your comments at that stage? I would be interested to know what GA criteria you think the article does not meet. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start working on it soon. It will not meet the stability criterion until I'm done. :) Sasata (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Sasata (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have renominated the article at GAN. I believe it reaches the GA criteria.
You are welcome, as is anyone else, to further work on the article while it is awaiting review or during the review process. This will not constitute instability but merely improvement. I acknowledge that much of the present article reflects your work and would jointly name you as nominator, but that seems inappropriate seeing that you think it is unready for nomination. However, I will add your name as joint nominator if you would like. It's not your article, it's not my article, but I do think it's a good article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add some material first and put it up for PR, so will remove it from the GAN queue. I will renominate it when I'm finished. (Doesn't make much sense to have the article content changing substantially while someone is trying to review it). Sasata (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

...when I saw that you hadn't edited anything in weeks, I was worried! :) MeegsC (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... I spent much of that time on the Great Slave Lake without internet access. It was quite enjoyable, even the coast guard rescue at the end wasn't so bad ... Sasata (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. That sounds like an adventure. Glad it was enjoyable — despite the rescue! MeegsC (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ditto! M.E.Nuhn has resurfaced too so have already asked him about some beoletoid stuff....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Cas, looks likes two new bolete genera were named while I was away: Exsudoporus and Suillellus ... just in case there wasn't enough to do! Sasata (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2014 September newsletter

In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. Scotland Casliber (submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, 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 · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lactarius volemus

An anonymous editor has just made this edit- I have reverted, as Mycobank still seems happy with Lactarius volemus, so I have reverted. I wonder if you have a view? J Milburn (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JM, the anon editor is correct; Lactarius systematics have changed considerably in the past year or two. See the recent changes on Lactarius, and the new articles Lactifluus and List of Lactifluus species. Unsurprisingly, Index Fungorum and MycoBank are slow to make the changes. I will try to make some time this weekend to update several articles that are affected. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, great- I'll self-revert and move the page. J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation bloat

Per consensus, it has been decided that transcluded cite templates should be substituted. Furthermore malaria is one of the top 1500 most accessed WP:MED articles and previously there was overwhelming consensus within in the medicine project that these templates should be substituted. Finally my edit to malaria also standardized the format of the citations. The only change to my edit that I probably should have made was to truncate the author list for the PMID 23245604 citation. I would respectfully ask you to reconsider your revision to my edit. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the single instance of the deprecated cite doi, and removed the unnecessary 6000+-character bloat that you introduced with your edit. Sasata (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my edit, 2000 of the 6000 added characters originated from the expansion of the author list of PMID 23245604 and was a mistake which I acknowledged above. The remainder of the 4000 character expansion was primarily from padding parameters with whitespace. I can understand why someone might possibly object if these citations were in-line making it harder to read the surrounding wiki text. However for the most part, the references were list-defined and segregated from the prose. Whitespace padding make the templates easier to read and causes negligible over head in rendering and editing the article. I therefore do not understand your characterization of my edit as introducing unnecessary parameter bloat. Boghog (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Whitespace padding make the templates easier to read..." [citation needed] Sasata (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spaces rock. I like to imagine that people who prefer no spaces live in very cramped, very crowded cubicles.

— Phil Cohen, stackexchange.com
"Whitespace is character bloat".[citation needed] Boghog (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously quoting the rambling of a random non-notable programmer to support your whitespace padding theory? BTW I live in Canada, often in a cabin with no other humans within 50 km, so Phil's musing (and your attempt to deflect that onto me) does not apply here. If you didn't notice already, the references in malaria already uses whitespace to set apart parameter names. I suggest that instead of wasting further time discussing whether it's a good idea to have spaces before and after "=", "|", and every other template character, our time here would be better spent working on articles. Sasata (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Phil's musing as well as my quotation of Phil are both tongue-in-cheek ;-) The thought behind the quotation is metaphorical and refers more to a state of mind rather than one's physical surroundings. While it may be debatable that adding white space to templates increases readability, it is equally debatable that adding white space increases template bloat. I agree that content is more important than formatting. Peace. Boghog (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thats 4 reverts

Would recommend you self revert and join the discussion on talk. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? I'm already on talk? Sasata (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you have made 4 reverts in less than 24 hours after not having edited that article in months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to article talk? Sasata (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure by I guess you have no intention to compromise or self revert so we can take this to 3RR. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look James, if you must go off to 3RR and try to beat me into submission, that's your prerogative. I'm trying to keep the malaria article neat and tidy despite the inevitable erosion. I have plans to take it to FAC, and will submit it with list-defined refs, unless you can establish a consensus that the refs should be in some other format. Sasata (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be happy to edit war me into submission so not sure what you expected? Yes we are the two top contributors to the article [3]. And you are unwilling to compromise at all. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise for what? Your blanket revert removed a couple hours of work that I put in. What did you expect? If the top two editors can't agree on the reference formatting, then we seek consensus. Sasata (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The compromise was this [4]. There was not a couple of hours of work in that. Was discussed here [5] and here [6] previously with non consensus to move all the refs to the end. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your revert was this, and yes, that was a couple of hours of work. Was discussed here [7]; of three editors that cared enough to comment (you, me, Colin), two out of the three liked the list-defined refs. Sasata (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

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.— Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for improving the lichen article?

I came across your user page when I saw some lichen articles I thought were good and checked their history for who made them so good. I saw on your user subpage that you listed improving the lichen article as one of your tasks for this year. If you have time, would you take a look at my recent revisions to the lichen article and suggest directions for improvement, especially as to making more Plain English readability for a general reader? I know the reproduction section needs work. Thanks. FloraWilde (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FloraWilde, unfortunately, the list of articles I want to improve far exceeds my available time … working on lichen has been on my "to-do" list for some years now without any significant progress, so I'm happy to see all the effort you're putting into it (and the new lichen species articles too!). I'll have a closer look early next week and see if I can assist. Sasata (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Featured Article: Notification

This is to inform you that Chorioactis, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 22 October 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian, I will do that. Sasata (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boletus eastwoodiae

If you have time, the Boletus eastwoodiae article could use some help. Thiers 1976 confused things significantly and considered this to be Boletus satanas. However B. satanas is only in Europe. B. eastwoodiae is a valid and common west coast taxon.

I also fixed the Boletus pulcherrimus article significantly. It is different than the other west coast red pored boletes Boletus eastwoodiae and Boletus haematinus.

Alan do we have a reference for eastwoodiae's distinctness? I think this hamstrung us before as we were going to do it a couple of years ago....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know of the molecular studies that the MykoWeb site alludes to that confirms their distinctiveness? What reliable sources can we use to contradict what Thiers wrote? Sasata (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Morchella sextelata

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Morchella sextelata you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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) 10:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Morchella sextelata

The article Morchella sextelata you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Morchella sextelata 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) 12:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Albomagister

Your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albomagister&curid=44371915&diff=633711345&oldid=633435080

Might be in error. The paper Deconstructing the Tricholoataceae said that Albomagister is probably mycorrhizal, citing that paper. I don't have access to that paper, but did you check it for the old name, Hygrophorus subaustralis?

There is no mention of Hygrophorus subaustralis (nor any other Hygrophorus) in Birkeback et al.'s Clavariaceae paper. Sasata (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TFAR nomination

Please see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Albatrellus subrubescens. — Cirt (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cucurbita status

You may recall several users have worked on this article for sometime. CorinneSD just did a superb copyedit on it. I was wondering if you could look at it to see if it is ready for featured nomination or if it needs more work beforehand. HalfGig talk 00:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll have a look tonight and leave some notes on the talk page. Sasata (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also see the note I left a few minutes ago at Talk:Cucurbita#Questions about wording, Item 13. CorinneSD (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since not all sources give a first name, just initial, I guess that means I need to change all authors to "Smith, J."? HalfGig talk 17:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not strictly necessary; rather, make sure things like comma usage between first/last names and delimiters between successive names (comma? semicolon?) are all in the same format. The references are already petty "clean" in this respect, so it shouldn't take more than a few changes to get it consistent. Sasata (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Russula brevipes

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Russula brevipes you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Gaff -- Gaff (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudallescheria boydii

Sasata, thanks for working through P. boydii. I radically edited the student's article from her draft (at least as much editing as I could tolerate), e.g., [8] which probably explains the tone. I know these references pretty well, and provide them to the students. Much of what this student included derives from tabular data in the Clinical Atlas and Dolin's Principles and Practice of Infectious Disease. To be sure I'll run the text through turnitin. Medmyco (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK with turnitin. Medmyco (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to hear, thanks for checking. Thank also for again orchestrating the development of several new or expanded high-quality articles on fungus species! I plan to copyedit and tweak the formatting on some of these with the aim of submitting them for WP:GAN. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the addition to the article Sasata. I did my PhD with Dave Malloch and spent some time working on some of the things he was interested in, this fungus was one. His description of Petriellidium arising from work he did in his doctorate was a sore point with the medical mycologists (notably my friend Professor Rippon) who felt the taxonomy had already been handled. My guess is that we haven't heard the end of it, and the most recent changes to the code will likely toss this back into Scedosporium. There is an ISHAM working group on P. boydii and things like it, and it turns out (not surprisingly) to be a species complex most of whose members are unnamed, which probably means that all the literature that has documented the fungus (short of the few reports that are tied to specimens or cultures), is dubious. Still, this article is better than what it replaced, and certainly better than nothing at all! Thanks again. Medmyco (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Featured Article: Notification

This is to inform you that Albatrellus subrubescens, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 11 December 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note date revised from 7th Brianboulton (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russula

I was just about to tackle the Russula synonymy, but I've seen you're working on it – so I'll let you do this ;) There should be a new phylogenetic classification coming out soon... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylototriton (talk • contribs) 19:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to take over ... I'm kinda jumping from article to article and have had enough Russula for a while! I was thinking about improving it and perhaps submitting it for GA, but if there will be a major taxonomy update soon, I'll put this on the back burner and work on other articles. Sasata (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic taxobox for Psilocybe semilanceata?

Why did you revert my edit? It looks the same on the page and would update automatically if there were any changes in the higher taxonomy. How would a regular taxobox be better?

Dgrootmyers (talk) 06:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The regular taxobox is easier to use, and is already in widespread usage for fungal taxa pages. For consistency, it would be ideal to stick to one taxobox system for the project; changing the format requires discussion with other interested editors. The template instructions remind us "Please remember: There's not yet consensus to convert all taxoboxes to automatic taxoboxes." Sasata (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Vermilacinia ceruchis
added links pointing to Cortex and Parmelia
Fistulinella wolfeana
added a link pointing to Hidalgo
Mason Hale
added a link pointing to Parmelia
Pseudallescheria boydii
added a link pointing to Antifungal
Russula
added a link pointing to Mercury
Vermilacinia ceruchoides
added a link pointing to San Vicente

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RX

[9]. Ping me after downloading, so I can delete it. Regards, - NQ (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NQ: That worked, thanks very much! Sasata (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sasata&oldid=636190126"