User talk:Ajpolino/Archives/2015

Microbiology editing
Hi! I saw from your edit summary on the Microbiology WikiProject that you were going to try to increase edit more articles and recruit people to do so. I made one article in the past, and I would be down to edit pages in a systematic/targeted fashion with you and whoever else decides to join! Let me know if you come up with any ideas as to what should be edited first, and how. Cheers, Rambunctious Racoon (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hooray! Yes, it seems like the WP Micro page has fallen a bit quiet, which is really too bad. Especially since there's so much to be done! My (evil top-secret) plan was to:
 * Try to tag more microbio-related articles with WP:Micro to increase our visibility
 * When I see someone has recently put a helpful edit on a microbio-related page, go to their talk page and invite them to join WP Micro.
 * Think of other ways to advertise our existence?
 * Other than that, I've taken up a series of seemingly arbitrary articles to work on. Right now, I'm pulling up stubs that have been tagged and trying to expand them. Though if you have a better/more productive idea I'd be happy to prioritize accordingly! Thanks for the message! I hope together we can help to bring more editors aboard WP Micro! (P.S. saw that Streptomyces antibioticus was accepted at AfC. Looks good!). Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) I think your goals are good, I'm down. One thing I wanted to discuss: should we create a ton of stubs for the microorganisms which are missing, or should we try to first improve the existing stubs? It's very much a quality vs quantity kind of thing. (Offtopic: would you consider using reply to when you reply? It'll notify me that there is a new comment here :]). Rambunctious Racoon (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (Sorry about that). Yes good question about the stubs. I'm not sure. I've been thinking about that too. I'm certainly not opposed to creating stubs for other microbes we're missing (especially the ones from the WP Micro talk page) but it is also true that we've got a couple thousand stubs already. So I'm not sure. My current thought is that we work on the stubs we have now, and if we think of a particularly important microbe we don't have an article on (e.g. formerly Streptomyces antibioticus) then we'll make articles for those. But I'll try to focus on the ones we already have. I could probably be swayed if you have strong feelings about article creation...Ajpolino (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we should do those top 20 and then work strictly on improving existing ones (i.e. not create any new stubs at all until all stubs are expanded}. What do you say? Rambunctious Racoon (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I say aye! 20 more stubs will bring us to 2,616! Bring on the stubs!!Ajpolino (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! How do you want to divvy it up? You do the species which have odd numbers in that list of most wanted (1st, 3rd, 5th,...), I take the even ones? Other way around? I really don't mind. Rambunctious Racoon (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You take the odds since you already got a head start with S antibioticus (if you have strong feelings about any of them in particular though, feel free to claim them. My microbes are your microbes).Ajpolino (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sweet, I'll get started on C. pasteurianum :) Rambunctious Racoon (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey man, so, I've created a couple of stubs/redirects as necessary, slowly but surely making my way through the list. I've just come across kind of a difficult one though: Rhizobium trifolii. It appears to be a biovar of Rhizobium leguminosarum. This paper says that "Rhizobia which nodulate clovers (Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar trifolii) are classified for practical purposes in the Rhizobium trifolii cross-inoculation group". Any idea how I should proceed? Hope everything is going well for you, editing-wise and otherwise! :] Rambunctious Racoon (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm. that's quite a mystery. It looks like plenty of papers refer to it as if it was its own species, but ATCC sells it only as a biovar of leguminosarum. My vote, for what it's worth, is not to spend too much time on it. I think if someone searches for it and instead they get a link to Rhizobium leguminosarum and somewhere in there (maybe in taxobox?) it mentions trifolii is a biovar, that should suffice. Hopefully, someday (soon) someone with more knowledge of Rhizobia will come along and sort out our mess. In the mean time we are doing our best to put an honorable band-aid on it :) If it's bugging you, I can poke around in the library tomorrow, I'll bet we've got a copy of Bergey's around. I think there's a new edition out in the last few years. There was supposed to be a web version but as far as I can tell it never really materialized. I hope everything is going well!!Ajpolino (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh, I don't know if you clicked on the link for Rhizobium leguminosarum, but it redirects to Rhizobium... Neither of the two exist! I couldn't redirect Rhizobium trifolii to Rhizobium leguminosarum because it would itself redirect to Rhizobium--and I believe that redirect chains simply don't work/aren't allowed by the underlying wiki software. So now we find ourselves at an impasse. What would you suggest? Should I make a page for R. leguminosarum and include something about R. trifolii as you were saying, or should I make a page for R. trifolii since neither exists anyway? Rambunctious Racoon (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha ooh the plot thickens. I guess I should've tried that before casting my vote. Ok then my new vote is we make a page for R. leguminosarum and redirect R. trifolii to it. Because that would get two birds with one stone.Ajpolino (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I did as ordered, that should all now be working! Only 8 more species to go! :] Rambunctious Racoon (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Corynebacterium glutamicum) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Corynebacterium glutamicum, Ajpolino!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Hi, just reviewed. I noticed that the references diverted me to a login page, so I've replaced them with pubmed links. Hope this is OK."

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.