User talk:Sasata/Archive 2

Thanks and a request
Thanks for signing up at Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add. Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Flatworm
A GA review next week will be fine, thanks. A mad scientist is just the kind of reviewer Flatworm needs, since the phylum is a taxonomic mess. --Philcha (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Avery-MacLeod-McCarty experiment
I've responded to all your concerns in the GA review for Avery-MacLeod-McCarty experiment, and I hope you'll take another look at. And damn, you're a good editor. Very impressive work with the fungus articles and photos.--ragesoss (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was hoping you would re-review it, and just treat it like an on-hold. If you don't want to, that's fine and I'll be perfectly happy to relist it.--ragesoss (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to do that. I left a note at the GAN talkpage, and if it's ok to do this, I will. Sasata (talk)
 * Fixed my judgement error, article now promoted. Happy editing! Sasata (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! By the way, you might consider archiving your talk page.  At 130k, it can take annoyingly long to load for people with mediocre connections.--ragesoss (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Phallus hadriani
--Dravecky (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hallo
Just wanted to say hello because we wrote about the same fungus in English and German Wikipedia Terana caerulea. Unfortunately we have not yet a fungi project for German Wikipedia (found another one from the Russians).

Regards

Hagen Graebner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.87.178.225 (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Boletus pinophilus
Hi, just letting you know I have passed the article- it had been sitting around for a while, and most of the issues were resolved. Apologies if you feel that not all of your concerns were dealt with, but I thought the article had been improved enough to warrant the promotion. J Milburn (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured_picture_candidates/Tom_Cobb_(2)
Information found. Or, rather, investigated - the Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News evidently didn't feel the need to use descriptions, but there's a scene which clearly matches the illustration in almost every detail. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cyathus stercoreus on hold
I have placed your Good Article nomination, Cyathus stercoreus on hold for reasons given in the review page. The issues in question are mostly minor issues regarding coverage. Please look at the review page and make the suggested improvements or respond to my concerns. I look forward to seeing the necessary improvements so I can promote this article to Good Article status. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Lisa vs. Malibu Stacy/GA1
Thanks for reviewing. I have made some changes to the article now so please take another look. :)  The Le ft orium  17:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Re-review?
Your user page is so awesome I am somewhat intimidated. But on the off chance you might have a few moments: would you mind taking a look on the progress made on the Seattle Fault article? Most of the points have been addressed, although I have questions on the need for sections in short article, and on how the graphics might be better arranged. Thanks. J. Johnson (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll have a look at the article later tonight when I have a more substantial chunk of time available. Sasata (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

GAN for Cyathus olla
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Cyathus helenae
The article contains a lot of mentions of C. olla- in the image caption (under a picture of C. helenae) "The faint inner plications help distinguish Cyathus olla from the similar C. striatus", the opening line of description "The resemblance that Cyathus olla bears to a miniature bird's nest with eggs is the source for its common name, bird's nest fungi" and third paragraph of description ("C. olla is distinguished from the more common C. striatus by its faint inner-surface plication (C. striatus has a more pronounced plication), the nodular arrangement of the hairs on the outer surface, and microscopically by the spore shape – ellipsoid in C. striatus, ovoid or spheroidal in C. olla.[1]"). Also, there is no picture in the taxobox- perhaps it would be worth moving the description image to the box? J Milburn (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone and made those changes I suggested above- if I've missed something, feel free to revert me. J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yikes... sloppy cut and pasting by me–obviously need to take a break from the bird's nest articles for a while! Thanks for making the changes. Sasata (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's quite funny that it wasn't noticed in the review! I've never tried a review of a topic I know nothing about; I guess it must be hard. J Milburn (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hya
Could you do an edit un-bunch at Russula nobilis? I see you do some outstanding work on fungi. Cheers Luridiformis (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You do some fine work yourself :) I've added the code to the R. nobilis article (+ some misc. copyedit), but you can fix the edit bunching bug yourself by adding the commands right before the taxobox,, after the taxobox but before the mycomorphbox and  after the mycomorphbox. Sasata (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for that useful info.......Luridiformis (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

User:AlexNewArtBot/FungiSearchResult
Nice find- that's going to be really useful. I contributed to almost every article on the list! J Milburn (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's a great page, it was buried in the archives and I didn't want it to go to waste. It's very handy for finding new articles for DYK. Sasata (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on Xerocomus chrysenteron
Just wanted to refer you to X.chrysenteron article. As you probably know, this mushroom has now been replaced, from whence it came, and is now once again a member of the Boletus  genus. What do you think of an article name change, and some tweaks throughout. If you do the name change, i'll to the tweaks. I see it was started in 2007, and needs bringing up to date. Or should i contact the originator? Luridiformis (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved the article to Boletus. There's probably more that have to be moved as well, I'll have a look later. Sasata (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice one....that looks better already.Luridiformis (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I kept Boletus badius at Boletus for that reason too - we really need a paragraph or more on Xerocomus at the Boletus page...Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Tree Sparrow
Many thanks for your thoughtful review jimfbleak (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Sasata (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting award...
User:TomasBat/Four_Award - I think you'll beat me to this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool! I was dreaming about an Alexander the Great Edition Triple Laurel Crown, but this one would be nice along the way! Sasata (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On a similar note, do you have any idea which WikiProject has the highest number of featured content articles? I'd like to know how high the bar has been set :) Sasata (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No idea...depends how you classify them really. eg WP Australia etc. have some umbrella status over Australian birds etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops
Can we have two 'Red Cracking Boletes' of different species. Will this confuse the layman? Boletus porosporus, and Boletus chrysenteron are in conflict here. Which one is the real red cracker?? That's the fun of fungi. Cheers Luridiformis (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A very quick web search seems to show that the Hlasek site just got it wrong, and B. chrysentron is the real cracker, so I removed that reference. Sasata (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks, but in the light of the great host of 'blushers' out there......our itsy little 'common name' clash pales into insignificance...Thanks again Luridiformis (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Psilocybe naematoliformis
I like the work you do, can we keep the layout the same as the other Psilocybes?thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warriorsoul (talk • contribs) 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been meaning to visit all the Psilocybe pages and change the species description format to the more accepted Wiki convention (eg. prose, instead of point form with incomplete sentences). Sasata (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Fountain of Time
I have attended to all your concerns at Fountain of Time and hope I have assuaged your opposition. I have also commented on your FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for leaving those comments on my FAC, there's some good suggestions and I'm working now to address them. I'll read and comment on the rest of your FAC later tonight. Sasata (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please strike anything that is resolved when you do so that I can keep track of my progress.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for taking an interest in this unique memorial to peace. I appreciate the latest round of feedback.  Again please strike resolved issues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks back at you for your valuable opinions on the fungus article. I'm enjoying the mutual article improvement. Will add more to the Cyathus article, and respond on your FAC later tonight when I have a bigger chunk of time available. Sasata (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Cyathus
I finally got around to looking over this article and did some simplifying on the lead. If I introduced any errors please feel free to correct them - I'm a parasitologist not a mycologist! Tim Vickers (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Tim, thanks for having a look and tweaking the lead, I like most of the changes. The article is now at FAC; I may have to tweak some more as one of the reviewers isn't happy with the new wording :) Put me down on your "favors owing" list. Sasata (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(P.S. I'm not a mycologist either, just an interested amateur)

hue chemical attacks
I've responded.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 02:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * and again  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * and again  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 05:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Nidula
Shubinator (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment!
I'm sure I'll require your help eventually. Thanks for the comment and offer - Jatlas

DYK for Coprinopsis lagopus
Shubinator (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

taxobox years
Look closer at WP:TX. Only animals have the date. This replicates a divergence in tradition when giving species in ICBN and ICZN publications. Although the years is almost always given alongside the author for animals, in the case of plants, mushrooms and similar organism, it is only given in detailed taxonomic writing, usually accompanied with the full original source.

A good alternative is to give such details in a Taxonomy section. Circeus (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, didn't know about the animal/plant thing. Thanks for clearing that up, I will change my habit for future articles. Sasata (talk)

I think you may have been asked before...
...but would you be interested in becoming an administrator? You have a clear knowledge of Wikipedia policy and practice, and you're committed to the project- I think you'd make a great admin. I'd be happy to nominate you, if you're interested? J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks kindly for the offer, but I have set a personal goal of becoming one of the top content contributors, and I'm fairly certain that admin duties wouldn't help with that :) I may change my mind in the future, but there's a lot of articles that need to get written or featured first .... Sasata (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I did the opposite to you- I started out wanting to be an administrator, became one, and now wish I could tear myself away from all the admin stuff to focus on article writing! If you do ever change your mind, let me know, and I'd be happy to nominate or even just offer my support. J Milburn (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

New stub
Just created new stub Handkea utriformis, there may be scope for your expertise.....Hope i haven't made too many obvious gaffs in the taxobox....Stay chilledLuridiformis (talk) 10:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll work on it later tonight. A quick glance at Index Fungorum shows its current name may be Lycoperdon utriforme, but I'll have to dig into the literature to verify. When I'm done how about I put up a co-nom for DYK? Sasata (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Go fer it..Luridiformis (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC) They have taken it back to the beginning.Luridiformis (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow... three hours of research later, and I'm still not entirely sure what the real name is. Although Fungorum claims it's now Lycoperdon utriforme, I can't find a specific literature source to confirm that (and Fungorum's not always right). So I changed the naming back to Handkea in the article and tried to explain the situation the best I could. The Handkea synonym seems to be used most widely in the literature anyway, but the article can be easily moved to the "correct" name, once we figure out what that is! I think I'll send an email to the author of that 2008 phylogenetics paper and get their expert opinion. The article looks in reasonable shape now, and might be good enough for a try at GA with a couple hours more work. Sasata (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (P.S. Have added a DYK nom) Sasata (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No need...i think this is it. Look at number 83 on the right hand side...Lycoperdales.Luridiformis (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, all that tells us is that the genera Bovista, Calvatia, and Lycoperdon belong to the Lycoperdales order, which we knew already. In my reading last night I came across [this 2004 thesis], and if you have look on page 52, he says that Kruger (in 2001) was unable to amplify rRNA from Handkea specimens, so they weren't included in the phylogenetic analysis. Too bad, because that would have answered these questions pretty conclusively.

That's pretty comprehensive...well done!...well...i did do the picture..Cheers Luridiformis (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah I noticed the picture, much nicer than any of the other ones I was able to find on the net!

Zombia GAN
I think I've addressed the concerns you raised. Guettarda (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Verpa conica
--Dravecky (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a specific reason you've gone for the user-drawn image? I'm personally very dubious about them in general- how about this one? J Milburn (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to avoid drawn images as well, but this pic was available on Commons, and none of the "good" ones on MO were wiki-compatible. I didn't like the one you pointed out because it's in pieces and isn't really a good representation of what the full-size mushroom looks like. Hopefully a better pic will pop up sometime. Sasata (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Editing
I read over your comments from the peer review of my Muscina page. I've just gotten permission from my professor to allow others to copyedit my page. I've tried to fix as many of the things you've mentioned as I can, but I would really appreciate it if you came back and help me copyedit. Thanks a lot! --Hieu87 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Hieu87
 * Sure thing, I'll do that later tonight. I've also nominated it for a DYK feature. Sasata (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks a lot, you're the best!

--Hieu87 (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!
In addition, you may use the userbox located at User:Drilnoth/Userboxes/GAN backlog elimination drive to indicate your participation on your user page. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Pseudocolus fusiformis
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. decltype (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Bovista
Arr, right. Aye, it's one of those things where, were the article longer, it'd be fine, but, at the moment, it seems to be presenting homeopathy as the only source of notability. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Cyathus
Congratualations- is that your first FA? You qualify for some of the content rewards now- take a look at the triple crown and the Four Award, if you're interested! J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yes it's the first, I'm no longer a FA virgin. Time to collect some shiny trinkets... Sasata (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Four Award
♠  TomasBat   23:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

re: Featured article candidates/Zinc/archive1
I believe most of your comments have been solved. Nergaal (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet more issues addressed. Please take look. I think we took care of everything. --mav (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Galerina
Galerina will be delisted unless someone addresses the WP:GAR concerns. You had started to make some editorial changes. Unless you notify me of an impending effort to improve the article, it will be delisted soon.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: DYK image swap
I did see that message, but I'm not an admin so I can't edit the queue either. Have you tried Gatoclass? I think he might be up at this hour (since he's Australian). Not sure about the others. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 07:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, he doesn't seem to be around, but BorgQueen and Dravecky have both edited within the last hour. You could try shooting one of them a message.  There is a bit less than an hour before Queue 2 goes up, so I imagine Dravecky will see your post before he updates the template. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 07:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The image has been substituted per Sasata's request. Gatoclass (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy! Thanks much Sasata (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Insect
Hi, Sasata. I agree that Insect is currently well below GA - in addition to the shortage of refs, there's some poor prose and IMO some gaps in content, e.g. phylogeny, both within Insecta and relative to other arthropods. However I would not have quickfailed it - Spider had similar problems when it came up for GA reassessment. I said I'd have a go and the reviewer waited 2 weeks, presumably happy that there were signs of decent progress - the revised version passed. Insect is of similar scope, and as a reviewer I'd give it more than the "standard" week for improvements.


 * Yeah, it's a judgement call. I checked the history of Insect and saw that the nom had only made 1 single contribution to the article, so it seemed like a "drive-by" nomination on an important article not yet ready for GAN. The nominating editor is more than welcome to prove me wrong and resubmit :)

I was also puzzled by your comment on the style of referencing for a heavily cited book. George H. D. Gossip passed FA review a few months ago, and uses a similar style. No particular style is mandatory, and I suspect it's horses for courses - I tend not to use Harvard referencing, which is what you seem to be hinting at, because I think it's overweight if a large number of sources are used relatively few times each; but it's good if the article cites a small number of sources many times each. In my experience articles about high-level taxa tend to have a mix of the 2 patterns - a textbook or two cited umpteen times for the "Zoology 101" stuff, and journal articles once or twice each for more advanced topics. Best wishes, --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It would sure be nice if there was one "standard" for science articles. In my recent FAC, the reference format was changed to the one I suggested in this GAN, so I presumed it was the way things were done. Still learning all the MOS regulations, and deviations therefrom... Sasata (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Now we need Malleus to comment on "deviations" :-)
 * BTW from what I've seen at WT:FAC it's not mandatory to do as reviewers say, if you can give good reasons for some other option, incl status quo. --Philcha (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikicup
In the interest of fostering competition, allow me to challenge you, as first place to your second =)

Or offer to collaborate on an article. Either way. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect our positions are short-lived, until Durova's FPCs, or Lefty's GANs start rolling in :) But I'm always up for a collaboration, for this or a later round. Sasata (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. I wouldn't be so sure about my position: I've lined up some stuff myself. =P But more seriously and productively, how about an article? If you speak French,  Le Cid (opera) might be a good choice. I can feed you a lot of information (In French) on it.  Otherwise, maybe Mycology, Mushroom or Fungus, to get the top-level articles done? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep me away from the opera.... haven't spoken French since High School (longer ago than I want to admit). But any science article is right up my alley, especially if it's fungi-related! Another good top-level one would be lichen which I started taking a stab at a while ago. Fungus is closest to the finish line, but I'm pretty easy–I don't mind doing the work (for some reason it's more fun if I'm not getting paid for it!), and have lots of resources available (shelves of books, blocks away from Uni library, online access to scholarly databases, etc.) How about you pick one and we'll make a plan of attack? Sasata (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not do Fungus, then Lichen? Fungus is a core article, and even if I'm not a huge fan of the core list, it seems woerth doing to fill another gap. A push seems fun. (Sorry I took so long to respond - forgot to watchlist your page.) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Valued picture candidates/Gyromitra infula
Hi, just letting you know I have nominated one of your images for valued picture status. J Milburn (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. This summer I'll be using a tripod for all my mush pics, so hopefully I'll have some shots where everything's in focus! Sasata (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Mycomorph
Oh, thanks. Now could you please do me a favor and put a mycomorphbox here? That would be nice. Thanks! Rory (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, there's a lot more expansion coming... just gathering sources. Sasata (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks... Just wondering, is it C-class now? Rory (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah looks like C-class; I'll add more later this week and see if I can bump it to B. Sasata (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh thank you! Rory (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your addition of Histoplasma duboisii. I really appreciate it! kilbad (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Stub pages
Aren't there millions of those? Perhaps you could work on getting one article up at a time to being a good article, instead of cranking out stub after stub? Is there really anything that important or useful to say about every one that they'd actually need a page and wouldn't merit merely a quick commentary on some more inclusive page? Banaticus (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, more like 10's of thousands :) It's all part of a long-term plan.... and I need a break from writing good articles. I've already got 6 waiting to be reviewed... interested? Sasata (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was actually patrolling for articles that needed speedy deletes -- your articles looked like they'd give me just the number I was looking for tonight. ;) Banaticus (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, you'd like to waste both of our time? Thought we were here to make an encyclopedia of human knowledge? Sasata (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point -- why clutter up the encyclopedia with a nigh uncountable number of useless stub pages over a swath of subjects when a simple list page could do a better job of representing it all? ;) Banaticus (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you considered checking out Wikispecies, Wikipedia's sister wiki just for projects like this? Banaticus (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Because every one of them represents a separate species, and is part of the collective accumulated scientific knowledge of mankind. I plan on eventually bringing every one of them to minimum start class. The existence of these articles on Wikipedia will help attract other fungal enthusiasts to contribute as well. What is wrong with having a separate page for every single species known to mankind, even if most of those species are little known? Isn't that where this site is eventually headed, decades from now? I thought I was helping to lay the groundwork for a comprehensive encyclopedia. Your use of the derogatory terms "clutter" and "useless" is disappointing, to say the least. Sasata (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikispecies doesn't let me add any descriptive information to the species pages, so it's of no real use for my long-term goals. Sasata (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 10's of thousands of species. Let's take just 10,000.  Let's say that it takes only 20 minutes to type enough material to make an article a good article, including good references, a history of each one, etc.  Let's say that you work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, every week, nonstop for years.  After almost five years of doing this as a full time job, you'd have that portion completed.  But, most of these will never get up to a good article level, because there just isn't that much on every fungus in the entire world.  Some have very limite niches, perhaps worthy of a comment on the page of the only animal that they're found living in a symbiotic relationship with.  Some don't "do" anything, there's nothing important about them and haven't even really been studied enough to be able to say anything other than name and shape and phylum, etc., those basic things that in and of themselves will never allow the stubs associated with those fungi to grow beyond a stub article.  Banaticus (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I never claimed each article was to be taken to good article status. Since when was the potential for GA the determining factor for an article's inclusion on Wikipedia? "There's nothing important about them" - this statement seems to show some bias, no? The fact that some scientist(s) spent their time to discover, investigate, and report these species indicates that someone did think it was important. Can I get back to work now? :) Sasata (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the whole point, you haven't shown that "some scientist(s) spent their time to discover, investigate, and report these species" -- you haven't met the basic requirements of Notability. You've just created dozens and dozens of stubs with pretty much nothing but their full name in the kingdom-genus tree.  Breaking the name down to fill an Infobox and putting a "part of the Fungus project" box onto the talk page doesn't somehow create notability. Banaticus (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I spend a lot of my time here at Wikipedia creating new articles, and they all start from stubs. I think my track record speaks for itself. Would it be possible for you to instead hassle someone else who makes stubs? Sasata (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I too believe that every species should have a wiki page, or at the very least a half a wiki page. so lets all buckle down, and do them......One at a time, and as comprehensively as we can, within the limits of our knowledge and expertise. I have to say that loads of headings (not stubs) do nobody much good. Luridiformis (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Luridiformis, my latest article Leucopaxillus giganteus, created from ... a stub! :) Sasata (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I would not for a minute doubt your expertise in this subject, and you have made significant contribs to wiki, but a heading is not a stub. To name a species/genus, or whatever, and then to leave it, will not help a browser. It will frustrate him/her. I am your biggest admirer..sorry...Luridiformis (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The stubs will grow, it just takes time. Sasata (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just stopping by to toss a word of congratulations and good cheer into the conversation. I think you're doing a wonderful job, stubbing out all these species and monitoring them, expanding to start class etc. Please keep up this important work. You should meet a friend of mine User:Blofeld - he has something like the second highest edit count on the project, perhaps the highest number of articles created (all stubs) and he regularly receives the same sort of time consuming criticism on his page for creating too many articles :) I think most of it is just jealousy and should be ignored. He makes an excellent argument, stubs that are created are also expanded. Now for some much more serious criticism Stop creating all these beautifully illustrated DYK noms! I'll never make the next round of the WP:Wikicup competing against all your stunning 'shrooms! Cheers and very happy editing Paxse (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note of support! I like Blofeld's work, and think he's a great model to emulate. I'm glad there's others here with the same stub-creation philosophy. Sasata (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, and thank you also. I never realised how fascinating fungi were until I started running across your wonderful noms at DYK - thanks for the new knowledge! I'm currently expanding some of Blofeld's 2007 geography stubs right now. Never let anyone say your stubs won't be expanded - they will, that's the point of a collaboratively written encyclopaedia. Paxse (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Cyptotrama asprata

 * Just a note to let you know that you haven't filled in one of the cite templates- footnote 6 is empty. J Milburn (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - fixed. Sasata (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:DERM
Thank you for joining! You may want to add your name to the participants subpage. kilbad (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Job
Here's some species. Rory (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... although I'm into stub creation, I'm reluctant to start articles for most of these species, as a lot of them represent names that just aren't used anymore. Point your browser at Index Fungorum, then do "Search Index Fungorum" for Gautieria... only the names that are in green are considered valid; all the ones in blue are older synonyms that aren't used anymore. I think I made the species list for that article before I figured that out. I will make stubs for the valid species though! Sasata (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks! Rory (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
✅ No probs. Pedro : Chat  07:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks kindly! Sasata (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Protein
Hello Sasata, I am going to review Protein in next few days. At first glance it looks pretty good. I will see what else is lacking about this very important topic. Thanks - DSachan (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking on the review! Sasata (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I finished the review. Please check back the talk page. - DSachan (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking an important topic to GA. - DSachan (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking for help
I am working on a manual of style for dermatology-related articles at MOS:DERM, this after discussing it at the main MOS page. With that being said, I wanted to know if you would help me develop it, particularly the creation of a suggested list of sections for articles about cutaneous diseases (similar to what is found at the general medicine MOS, but tailored to cutaneous conditions, and better written)? I understand if you are busy, but wanted to see what you thought. Regardless, thank you for your work on wikipedia! ---kilbad (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll help with what I can, but bear in mind I'm not really a MOS-style expert, nor an MD (my wife is tho). I'm currently slowly working on the article Tinea capitis, and perhaps when finished, it could serve as a useful model for further derm-related articles? I'm dreaming about someday completing a featured topic with all the dermatophytoses, so a specific MOS:DERM would be very handy. Sasata (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a "proposed sections" section at MOS:DERM. What do you think?  What would you improve?  Also, what other issues would you like to see addressed in the MOS:DERM in general? ---kilbad (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions:
 * Footnote 2 should also mention geographical distribution, if this is specific to the disease
 * Done. ---kilbad (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not clear what should go in "Laboratory findings"; does this mean specific lab tests used to verify disease?


 * I edited the "Laboratory findings" footnote. Does that read better to you? ---kilbad (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's clear now... but now I'm wondering about overlap with the "Diagnosis" section :) Sasata (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe mention how to deal with overlap, e.g. for Tinea capitis, microscopic examination of hair roots is one 'test' used for disease confirmation; does this go in "Laboratory findings" or "Pathology" (or both)?
 * Perhaps you could give me a little more feedback on this point. How would you like to see overlap addressed?  Generally, I would consider KOH preps, microscopic examination of hair, scapings, etc. appropriate for the pathology section.  White blood cell count, complement levels, serum iron levels, etc. are generally things I would consider lab results. Perhaps we could put examples of "Laboratory findings" and "Pathology" content in the footnotes? ---kilbad (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just thinking out loud, maybe Diagnosis should be specifically renamed to "Differential diagnosis", and the footnote might read like "This section should discuss other diseases that have a superficial resemblance to the disease in question, and the diagnostic techniques used to distinguish between them" or something like that. What do you think about combining "Laboratory findings" and "Pathology" into one section? Sasata (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How about a section for prevention?
 * Done. ---kilbad (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest putting in a (free access) review article or two as additional examples of reliable secondary sources in Wikipedia:DERM:REF
 * Done. ---kilbad (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

''I copied this conversation over to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dermatology-related_articles) and have replied there in response to your latest feedback. ---kilbad (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)''

fungal taxon

 * Thanks! I only have several thousand left to do :D Sasata (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Another one

 * Thanks! Can't stop now anyways, I have caffeine speeding through my veins and my eyes are glued to the screen... will take several hours for the buzz to die down... Sasata (talk)

And another...

 * Thanks kindly! The past few days have been a stub-making extravaganza; I'm thinking by the end of the week WP will have a page for all Ascomycota taxa genus-level and higher, which is good, because this is the most populous of all the fungi phyla. When I'm done that I'm going to concentrate more on quality and see about getting Fungi to FAC. Sasata (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool! This is my second "day"; if I get 5 more can I trade them in for a week? :) Thanks Sasata (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

GAN Insects
Can you explain the suggestions you made for Insects? And I want to make Trombicuildae ready for GAN, I know it needs a lot of work, but do you have any suggestions? Bugboy52.4 (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, what specifically was unclear? The main problem was the lack of references, but I see you've already made good progress towards fixing that. Regarding Trombiculidae, there's a problem with the "Trombiculiasis" section, is needs to be rewritten to sound less like "advice" and more like an encylopedia. Try to avoid paragraphs that are a single sentence long... either expand them, or combine with other parts if possible. There's also quite a few paragraphs with no references at all, which won't fly at GAN. Also, a history section would be good (who first erected the taxon, has it gone though any name changes, what's the derivation of the scientific name, who are the scientists who have contributed the most to the knowledge of the taxon and in what publications, etc.). Hope that helps. Sasata (talk) 05:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanls for a replay, I'll get too adding more references to both Trombiculidae and insects, I'll come back when I think I am done. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Above
That's pretty good! Rory (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Triple Crown
Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Cyathus - you are also eligible for a FOUR Award for this one - I will nominate you for that now. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! (already have the 4-award though) Sasata (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Chorioactis geaster
Hi Sasata, Filip em from Polish wikipedia here. I'm great fan of your articles and I've translated some of them into Polish (pl:Urnula craterium, pl:Lysurus mokusin, pl:Clavulina cristata). I have just obtained permission to use some beautiful photographs of rare species, Chorioactis geaster, and thought you may be interested (it's a perfect candidate for DYK in my opinion). Now I'm working on the Polish version of this article, later I will try contribute to the English one.

Best wishes from Polish wikipedia! Filip em (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for letting me know about that photo; interestingly, I saw that article about a month ago and was thinking it would be great to have a picture for it. I'll see what I can do about writing a DYK. Cheers Sasata (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks great, and that was pretty fast! Cheers, Filip em (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

GAN Insects
I have completely added Reference (I believe) and attempted to "flesh the lead" as I think what you intended it to mean. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have also completed Trombiculidae, just contact me if you think they are ready, and I will put them on GAN. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The referencing for Insect looks much better; there's still a few spots where citations will probably be requested, but you can work through those with the reviewer. Suggest getting someone to do a copyedit on the prose - this article gets a ton of traffic so it's a good idea to have clean prose and a tight presentation. Trombiculidae stills needs some work, eg. "To avoid being afflicted by chiggers, always wear a tight weave, protective clothing, and long pants." -> "advice" sentences like that need to be reworded. The lead could be longer. All the external links in the refs should be converted to citation templates (and, if possible, fill in the "author" and "publisher" fields to make them more informative for the user). There are still uncited paragraphs. Get rid of the uncited sources in the references section (either dump them, put them to "further reading", or better, convert to in-line cites). Where's the history section? Prose could use a copyedit from a fresh pair of eyes. Keep up the good work – it's great to see these important articles being improved. Sasata (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what copyedit and prose are? And can you give me an example on how you would reword that sentence, and I could not find any history on the family. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Copyedit=proofreading, fixing grammar, punctuation and word usage; prose=the organization of written language. "To avoid being afflicted by chiggers, always wear a tight weave, protective clothing, and long pants." -> "Chigger bites can be minimized by the use of tightly woven protective clothing, including long pants." Then an in-line citation at the end to specify where you got that info from. Regarding history, there's dozens (100's?) of scientific journal articles from which more information might be gleaned. Start with a Pubmed search and work your way from there. You'll probably need to make a trip to a University library to access most of these articles. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will do that now, and some more latter. Also, do you know anyone who would be available now to review insects for GAN? it is on the list, and you did review it fast. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.
Wow, don't you ever delete any of your old messages? Anyway, I wanted to thank you for peer editing my article, Gobioides Brussonneti. I have fixed everything mentioned. Well almost everything. I tried to move the page but ran into problems as the uncapitalised version aready had a redirect to my page. I submitted it for administration to move. There just isn't enough information out there on this fish. The article probably wont get much longer. I will try to go down to my local library and see if I cant find this fish anywhere in a book or encyclopedia. And I had to keep pH capitalized because it's at the begining of a sentence. I'm not certain, but I think grammar rules outweigh the need for it to be uncapitalized. I took out the taxonomy section, though I really didnt want to. It had so much more information than the taxobox does. Anyway, take a look at the revised page please...Drew R. Smith (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's better, but still not near GA status; what's the rush to get it to GA – how about taking your time and trying to make it the best article possible? Still issues with capitalization in headers; italics for Latin name (genus name is caps, species name not, so correct is Gobioides broussonneti); references in templates; spelling errors. pH is never written with a capital p (the small letter p indicates that it's the negative log of the hydrogen ion concentration); just reword the sentence so it doesn't have to come at the beginning. The prose is poor, eg.


 * "It is generally sold as a "highly aggressive" fish but this just isnt the case."
 * "All along the coast from Georgia to northern Brasil." - incomplete sentence
 * "Any small, peacful, brackish tolerant fish." - incomplete sentence, spelling eror
 * "Semi hardy fish." - incomplete sentence
 * "It can spread to other fish, so keep an eye on them." - colloquial, not encylopedia-like

Keep working on it, it'll get there eventually. Cheers Sasata (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)