Open main menu

Archive
Archives

Contents


Nomenclature of fungiEdit

Hey there. I recently stumbled across an issue of Nova Hedwigia Beheift titled "the genera of fungi" (or was it agaricaceae?). It's filled to the brink with mind-numbing nomenclatural discussions of all the genera ever described (I think, anyway). Would it be any use if I looked up the specific ref or any specific genera? Circeus 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be friggin' trés bién. The first one that would be absolutely great to get a clarification on is Agaricus which was called Psalliota in many texts fro many years and I've been mystified as to why. Other articles I intend cleaning up are Amanita muscaria, which is the one I intended taking to FA first but it just didn't come together well, Gyromitra esculenta as a future FA, Agaricus bisporus as a future FA, and cleaning up the destroying angels – Amanita virosa, Amanita bisporiga and Amanita verna. Boletus edulis would be a good one to check too. let me know if anything interesting pops up. I'll see ifd I can think of any other taxonomic quagmires later today. Work just got real busy :( cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Generally, that's pretty arcane and only relevant to genus articles, or species that were tightly involving in defining them (for example, there seems to be an odd debate over the multiple type species for Amanita). I'll look up Agaricus, Amanita (since A. muscaria's the current type) and Psalliota. I'll also dig up the ref so you can look it up yourself, with any chance. Circeus 04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Cool, keen to see what pops up. Cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I only quickly thumbed through it and noted the full ref (Donk, M.A. (1962). "The generic names proposed for Agaricaceae". Beiheifte zur Nova Hedwigia. 5: 1–320. ISSN 0078-2238.) because I forgot about it until the last minute. Psalliota looks like a classic synonym case. It shares the same type with Agaricus, and might be older. Circeus 01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Weird! I thought Linnaeus was calling all sorts of things Agaricus so I wonder how it could predate that really....anyway I am curious.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


Okay, First thing I have to say is... Damn, 18th–19th century taxonomy and nomenclature of fungi is a right mess. Whose bright idea was it to give fungi 3 starting dates in the ICBN???

LOTS of "per" in citation here. See [1]

On Agaricus
Etym.: Possibly "from Agarica of Sarmatica, a district of Russia" (!). Note also Greek ἀγαρικ[1]όν "a sort of tree fungus" (There's been an Agaricon Adans. genus, treated by Donk in Persoonia 1:180)
Donk says Linnaeus' name is devalidated (so that the proper author citation apparently is "L. per Fr., 1821") because Agaricus was not linked to Tournefort's name (Linnaeus places both Agaricus Dill. and Amanita Dill. in synonymy), but truely a replacement for Amanita Dill., which would require that A. quercinus, not A. campestris be the type. This question compounded by the fact that Fries himself used Agaricus roughly in Linnaeus' sense (which leads to issues with Amanita), and that A. campestris was eventually excluded from Agaricus by Karsten and was apparently in Lepiota at the time Donk wrote this, commenting that a type conservation might become necessary.
All proposals to conserve Agaricus against Psalliota or vice versa have so far been considered superfluous.

References

  1. ^ Letter is script and looks like a Russian и.
On Lepiota
Etym. Probably greek λεπις, "scale"
Basionym is Agaricus sect. Lepiota Pers. 1797, devalidated by later starting date, so the citation is (Pers.) per S.F.Gray. It was only described, without species, and covered an earlier mentioned, but unnamed group of ringed, non-volvate species, regardless of spore color. Fries restricted the genus to white-spored species, and made into a tribe, which was, like Amanita repeatedly raised to genus rank.
The type is unclear. L. procera is considered the type (by Earle, 1909). Agaricus columbrinus (L. clypeolarus) was also suggested (by Singer, 1946) to avoid the many combination involved otherwise in splitting Macrolepiota, which include L. procera. Since both species had been placed into different genera prior to their selection (in Leucocoprinus and Mastocephalus respectively), Donk observes that a conservation will probably be needed, expressing support for Singer's emendation.
On Psalliota
Etym.: ψάλιον, "ring"
Psalliota was first published by Fries (1821) as trib. Psalliota. The type is Agaricus campestris (widely accepted, except by Earle, who proposed A. cretaceus). Kummer (not Quélet, who merely excluded Stropharia) was the first to elevate the tribe to a genus. Basically, Psalliota was the tribe containing the type of Agaricus, so when separated, it should have caused the rest of the genus to be renamed, not what happened. It seems to be currently not considered valid, or a junior homotypic synonym, anyway the explanation is that it was raised by (in retrospect) erroneously maintaining the tribe name.
On Amanita
Etym.: Possibly from Amanon,a mountain in Cilicia.

A first incarnation from Tentamen dispositionis methodicae Fungorum 65. 1797 is cited as devalidated: "Introduced to cover three groups already previously distinguished by Persoon (in [...] Tent. 18. 1797) under Agaricus L., but at that time not named. It is worth stressing that [The species now known as Amanita caesarea] was not mentioned."

With Agaricus L. in use, Amanita was a nomen nudum per modern standard, so Persoon gave it a new life unrelated to its previous incarnations, and that is finally published after a starting date by Hooker (the citation is Pers. per Hook., 1821). He reuses Withering's 1801 definition (A botanical arrangement of British plants, 4th ed.). "The name Amnita has been considered validly published on different occasions, depending on various considerations." Proposed types include (given as Amanita. Sometimes they were selected as Agarici):
  • A. livida Pers. (By Earle, in 1909). Had been excluded in Vaginata or Amanitopsis and could not be chosen.
  • A. muscaria Pers. (By Clemens & Shear, 1931) for the genus (1801) from Synopsis fungorum, was generally transferred to the one from Hooker's Flora of Scotland, which is currently considered the valid publication of Amanita (or was in the 50s).
  • A. phalloides (by Singer, 1936) for the 1801 genus.
  • A.bulbosa (by Singer & Smith, 1946) for Gray's republication. This is incorrect as Gray's A. bulbosa is a synonym of A. citrina. Some authors consider Gray to be the first valid republisher.
  • A. caeserea (by Gilbert, 1940). Troublesome because not known personally to Persoon or Fries.

Donk concludes the earliest valid type is A. muscaria, the species in Hooker, adding that he'd personally favor A. citrina.

The name has been republished three times in 1821: in Hooker, Roques and Gray (in that order). Roques maintained Persoon's circumscription, including Amanitopsis and Volvaria. Gray excluded Amanitopsis and Volvariella into Vaginata. Right after, Fries reset the name by reducing the genus to a tribe of Agaricus, minus pink-spored Volvariella. This tribe became a subgenus, than genus via various authors, Quélet, altough not the first, often being attributed the change. Sometimes it was used in a Persoonian sense (whether that is a correct use according to ICBN is not clear to me).
Homonyms of Amanita Pers. are Amanita adans. (1763, devalidated) and Amanita (Dill) Rafin. (1830)
On Boletus
Not including (Not in Agaricaceae, sorry).

Phew! Circeus 18:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you intend to clean that prose ASAP? It's definitely not article-worthy as is. Circeus 01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on it. Got distracted this morning...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

PorkEdit

LOL, I love your sense of humour. Maimonedes is a good reference. The reality is that Islam takes food restrictions from Judaism; and Christianity doesn't have any restriction (courtesy of three references in the New Testament). The reason why pork should be restricted (along with many other things) is not given explicitly in the Hebrew Bible, hence Bible commentators have been offering guesses since ancient times. My own favourite, however, is Mary Douglas, wife of Louis Leakey, daughter of a Lutheran pastor. Her theory is excellent, based on her cultural anthropological observations, with a decent feel for how Biblical text works. It's rather an abstract theory though. Anyway, I'll see if I can manage a literature review of dietry restrictions in the ANE, especially if there's anything explicit about pork. Don't think I'll find a reference for "why" the pork taboo is in place, though, if it's documented, I'd have read about that in commentaries. Perhaps a clay tablet with the answer has been destroyed in only the last few years during the "troubles" in Iraq. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the great thing about uncertainty. Lacking an answer, the reports of Maimonides, Mary Douglas and the other guy mentioned are fascinating.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Scotish pork taboo is a remarkable article! Thanks for that, lol. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Spotted this. I'll look for a ref to the Maimonides comment. The normal teaching is that pork is no more or less offensive to Jews than any other forbidden meat (dog, horse etc) or forbidden part of kosher animal (blood, Gid Hanasheh etc). The pig (NB pig, not pork – an important distinction which is relevant for the Maimonides comment too, I note) is "singled out" because it alone of the animals that have one of the two "signs" (it has split hooves but doesn't chew the cud) lies down with its legs sticking out. Most quarapeds have their legs folded under them. There's a midrashic lesson to be learned there, apparently, that the pig is immodestly and falsely proclaiming its religious cleanliness, when it is not. Anyway, that said, I'll look into the M comment – he was quite ahead of his time in terms of medical knowledge (check his biog). And NB my OR/POV antennae buzzed when I read that little section. --Dweller (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone has tagged the Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork for OR, though the talk page seems to indicate it is for a different reason....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... makes me more dubious, but I'll check. btw... I'm not Alastair! --Dweller (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Have found good stuff, including online version of Maimonides text. I'll dump it here for you to use as you wish.

I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork (Lev. xi. 7), and fat (ibid. vii. 23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks.[1]

So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter", whatever that means! More importantly, the "principal reason" is that if you keep pigs, you end up with a dirty and unhealthy environment. Important note: Maimonides was writing from Islamic Egypt at the time, which is why he mentions "as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks." (ie France)

The comments about the pig's habit of lying with its legs outstretched come from Midrash Vayikra Rabba (ch 13) where it is mentioned as part of an elaborate metaphor, but not in connection with any reason for particularly abhorring the creature.

Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Maimonides, Guide for the perplexed, Book III ch.48. Can be viewed online at http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp184.htm

Bract patternEdit

Banksia menziesii cone.jpg

You know what I don't get? On page 245 of George (1981), and again on page 40 of Collins (2007), George gives a diagram showing the arrangement of unit inflorescences on a Banksia flower spike. Both diagrams clearly show a hexagonal layout; i.e. every common bract is surrounded by six equidistant common bracts, thus forming little hexagons. In support of this, George (1981) states "The unit inflorescences are so arranged on the axis that there are three pattern lines—vertical, and both dextral and sinistral spiral."

I haven't dissected an inflorescence, but in some species the pattern persists right through flowering and can be seen on the infructescence. You won't get a better example than this B. menziesii cone. Look at that pattern. There's no way you could call it hexagonal. It is a rectangular (or rather diamond, since the lines are diagonal) grid. Depending on how you define a neighbourhood, you could argue that each common bract has 4 or 8 neighbours, but there's no way you could argue for 6. Similarly, you could argue for two pattern lines (dextral and sinistral spiral) or four (dextral, sinistral, vertical and horizontal), but there is no way you could argue for 3, because there is no reason to include vertical whilst excluding horizontal). On top of that there is a beautiful symmetry in the way each common bract is surrounded by its own floral bracts and those of its neighbours. But George's diagrams destroy that symmetry.

I thought maybe B. menziesii was an exception to a general rule, but you can see the same diamond grid, though not as clearly, in File:Banksia serrata4.jpg, and I reckon (but am not certain) I can see it in my B. attenuata cone. And in File:Banksia prionotes mature cone.jpg too. What the heck is going on?

(I'm not just being a pretentious wanker here. I thought the diagram was interesting and informative enough for me to whip up an SVG version for Wikipedia. But since copying George's diagram isn't really on, and it is much better to go straight from nature if possible, I was basing my version on this B. menziesii cone. But it isn't going to work if the diagram shows a rectangular grid and the text has to say it is hexagonal.)

Hesperian 13:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me on this one – I think it was Alex (or Kevin??) who told me that every bract pattern was unique to a species and hence diagnostic, but as far as I know not much if anything has been published on this area. The similarity between archaeocarpa and attenuata was noted (the bract pattern remaining in the fossils). I seem to recall feeling bamboozled as well by the description when I read it some time ago. I will have to refresh myself with some bedtime reading....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Update: I had a look at the pages in question in the banksia book(s), there is a little bit more in the 1981 monograph but not much. I meant to ring Alex George about this and should do so in the next few days...I guess the photos look sort of like hexagons stretched vertically :P Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Dipsacus fullonum Just passing through. I am not an expert with flora but I do take photos now and again. Does this image from my personal collection help or hinder your discussion? I see diamonds --Senra (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Haha yeah. Not a bad comparison at all. a diamond pattern it is there as well. You sorta let your eyes go a little out of focus and see two diagonal lines....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

QuestionEdit

If this is what developing flower pairs look like...
then what are these brown and white furry things?

I note that the last six images to be posted on your talk page were posted by me. I'm not sure whether to apologise....

What is going on in the lower image? Clearly this is an inflorescence in very early bud, but those furry white things are apparently not developing flower pairs. Are they some kind of protective bract or something?

Hesperian 01:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You certainly see those thingies on the developing buds of alot of banksias. I'd be intrigued what the Nikulinsky book, which is essentially a series of plates of a developing menziesii inflorescence, says (not sure, I don't recall whether it had commentary...). Another thing to look up. Was about to look up the patterns just now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Now I have looked at the books and bract architecture, question is are they common bracts or are they something which falls off (don't think so but..). Something else to ask Alex. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Having found nothing in George, I've been reading Douglas's stuff on ontogeny of Proteaceae flowers, and found nothing there either.

If you snap a spike axis in half, they are just that brown colour, and essentially made of closely packed fuzz. I wonder if there is initially no gap in the axis for the flower to grow, so the developing flower literally has to shove some of the axis out in front of it as it extends. This would explain everything except for the white tip. Hesperian 10:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


I have today taken a long lunch and gone bushwalking with Gnangarra. While he took happy-snaps, I did some OR on this question. My diagnosis is: these are peduncles that have developed common bracts, but have not yet developed floral bracts or flowers.

In very young spikes like the one pictured here, they are not yet very densely packed together, so they can be perceived as individual peduncles. Given time, they will continue to grow, and as they do so they will become more and more densely packed together, until eventually they are jammed together so tightly that their dense coverings of hairs form the fibrous brown material that comprises a typical flower spike, and the common bracts at their apex will form the bract pattern on the surface of the spike. At that point, they will no longer be distinguishable as individual peduncles, but will simply be part of the spike.

When the flowers start to develop, they get squeezed together even more. At this point, sometimes, a peduncle may break off the axis and be squeezed right out of the spike as the flowers around it develop. Thus you may see one or two of these furry things sitting at random positions on the surface of a developed flower spike.

As evidence for this hypothesis I offer the following observations:

  1. Wherever one of those "furry things" is found loose on the surface of a spike, you will also find a gap in the bract pattern beneath it, where the common bract is absent;
  2. "Furry things" may occasionally be found partly out of the spike, but partly in, in which cases the white tip is quite obviously the common bract. In such cases removal of the "furry thing" leaves behind a visible hole in the spike where a common bract ought to be.

Hesperian 05:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting – Gah! Forgot to ring Alex – evening is a crazy time with little availability for me, but will see what I can do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Not OR any more. Look at the picture of "Banksia flower bud seen in profile" here: clear evidence of the common and floral bracts forming one of those little furry upside-down pyramids, with the flower arising from it. Hesperian 03:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

On a tangential point, the first image would most likely pass FPC if it ever finds a home that is appropriate. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, okay, hopefully Hesperian will see this thread. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Gosh, would it really?! I was quite proud of it but a bit unsure whether it had enough depth of field. But if I'll take anyone's word that it would probably pass, I'll take Noodle snacks. :-) Hesperian 23:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Banksia menziesii with persistent floretsEdit

Banksia menziesii inflorescence with persistent florets.jpg
Banksia menziesii with persistent florets.jpg

While I was out a-walking in the bush one day last week, I spied a banksia with an unfamiliar jizz. Even on closer inspection I was bamboozled for half a minute until the pieces fell together and I realised I was looking at a B. menziesii with persistent florets. Not just a bit late to fall: there were old cones from previous seasons with the florets still bolted on. In fact, there wasn't a single bald cone on the whole tree. I've never seen anything like it. Have you? Hesperian 04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm..interesting. I have not ever noticed a menziesii like this, but not to say it can't happen. Might it be a menziesii/prionotes hybrid – how far is the tree from you? I'd compare the newgrowth/leaf dimensions/trunk all for comparison. Did it have any new flowers? Some of these old cones have an aura of prionotes about them...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
prionotes crossed my mind at first, but the bark is that of menziesii, and nothing like the distinctive prionotes bark. And the flower spikes lack the woolliness of old prionotes florets.

It's quite near my place; about ten minutes drive. Even closer to where Alex lives (assuming he still lives at the address he has been publishing under lately): only five minutes drive from there I would guess. If it's prionotes (which it isn't), then we've extended the known range of that species 10km south. Likewise, a hybrid means there's a prionotes population nearby, so it amounts to the same thing. Hesperian 05:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Banksiamyces againEdit

I finally made it to the library and got a hold of the article you had asked about a couple of weeks ago. There's enough info there to make DYK-worthy stubs on the genus, and three of the species (macrocarpus, katerinae, toomanis), or, alternatively, maybe enough for a GA on the genus. What are the chances of images? Apparently these fungi make small but visible apothecia on the seed capsules. Berkeley and Broome first wrote about the fungus in 1887, so maybe there's a sketch from the protologue that's useable. Anyway, I'll start adding text in a day or two and maybe we can have the first Banksia/Fungi wikiproject collaboration? Sasata (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Berkeley & Broome (1887) is online at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/13683 — see page 217. There is a picture at Plate 29 figure 18. Hesperian 02:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a nice image on plate 29 there. They call it Tympanis toomanis on page 224 decription of plate. How do we capture that image and replicate it on commons? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Like this. Hesperian 03:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
On page 222, they talk about finding it on a banksia cone near the Tooma River in southern NSW, which leaves me thinking it is a cone of Banksia marginata although they do not state this (OR alert ++++). Funny looking marginata cone but marginata is a hugely variable species....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Check your email; I've sent you a copy of Beaton (1982), where they do state that the cone is B. marginata. (You guys should have asked me first; I could have saved Sasata a walk to the library.) Hesperian 03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
@Sasata – I'll leave it up to you whether a solid GA and one DYK for the whole shebang, or 4 species articles – you've got the material and I am happy either way. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Am working on the article behind-the-scenes now... that picture you uploaded is excellent, and thanks Hesp for finding the protologue. Too bad the scan resolution is so crappy; I can upload a screen capture/crop to Commons, but will first investigate to see if there's a copy of the original around here so I might rescan at higher resolution. Four DYKs and 1 GA doesn't sound unreasonable for the lot, but I'll see what I can come up with. Sasata (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The resolution is good. I guess you were looking at it at 25%. Try zooming in. Hesperian 03:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it'll do the trick. I gave the article a good push towards GA. Hesp, do you have easy access to Beaton 1984, or maybe Fuhrer, B,; May, T. (1993). "Host specificity of disc-fungi in the genus Banksiamyces on Banksia." Victorian Naturalist (South Yarra) 110 (2):73–75? I think once those two are located and added, that'll be it from journals (but you may find stuff to add from your Banksia books?). I could start stubs for the species, but it would be a shame to have to leave out B. maccannii. Sasata (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I can probably get Vic Naturalist at UNSW Library next tuesday or friday (slim chance on weekend). Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
When you get to Victorian Naturalist, you'll also want to grab Sommerville, K.; May, T. (2006). "Some taxonomic and ecological observations on Banksiamyces". The Victorian Naturalist. 123: 366–375.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Hesperian 08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that, wonder why it didn't show up in my database search. Cas, if it's too mush hassle for you to get these, let me know and I can order them, would take 1–2 weeks to get here.
I'll have easy access to Beaton (1984) on Monday. No access to Victorian Naturalist. Hesperian 08:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot again. I've just scanned it now. Cas: I'll forward shortly; if you have Sasata's email address, can you forward it on please? Otherwise, Sasata: send me an email so I know where to send this scan. Hesperian 04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any email link on your user page... I can wait until Cas forward a copy. Thanks kindly Sasata (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess you've never noticed the "Email this user" link in the sidebar toolbox.... Hesperian 23:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
! Wouldya look at that... That's embarrassing! Now excuse me while I go give eyewitness testimony in a murder trial. Sasata (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hang on a sec, will send. Also, will be near the library again for Vic Naturalist. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hahaha. Fantastic. I just realised I never uplaoded a funny photo I took in WA a few years ago. I need to double check.
This old cone of Banksia violacea had these dark objects on it which might be a fungus as they certainly weren't on any other cones I saw about the place.
Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As OZtrylia has a notoriously under described rang of and field of mycology study – any signs of further fungi or algae work is to be encouraged at all points SatuSuro 01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


Taking pity on poor Cas, whose Banksia books are still packed up in boxes:

From Collins, Collins and George (2008), page 47, first paragraph of a section entitled "Fungi and lichens":

"Many kinds of fungi are associated with Banksias. There is even a genus of fungi named for their association with these plants—Banksiamyces. The first species of these was recognised in the 1880s and placed in the genus Tympanis, then in the 1950s transferred to the genus Encoelia. Further collections and research led to the description of the genus Banksiamyces by Beaton and Weste in 1982, with two further species. Six taxa are now recognised, so far known from 13 species of Banksia (Sommerville & May, 2006). Commonly known as banksia discs, they have all been found on eastern Australian Banksias and one is also known in Western Australia. They are discomycete fungi, growing on the fruit and appearing as small, shallow dark cups on the follicles (Fuhrer, 2005). When dry they fold inwards and look like narrow slits. Their effect is unk[n]own but it seems unlikely that they are responsible for degradation of the seeds."

At the bottom of the page there is a photo of Banksiamyces on B. lemanniana. They look like little light grey maggots on the follicles. Based on the photo and textual description, I would suggest that the B. violacea photo doesn't show this genus. Hesperian 11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's what I initially thought when I read the description and sketches in Beaton 1982, but after seeing B&B's 1872 sketches, I was pretty sure Cas's pic was a Banksiamyces. I guess I should reserve judgment until I get more info. Sasata (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
From the abstract of Somerville and May 2006: "Apothecia of these crops are of different macroscopic appearance, with lighter apothecia being mostly immature, and darker apothecia producing spores." ... so who knows? Sasata (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Anything else to add to this article? Shall we put it up for GAN? Sasata (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah put it up, there might be some bits and pieces. I'll take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Any Banksia experts you're chums with that might be able to give a confirmation on your putative Banksiamyces photo? Sasata (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
damn, I meant to contact Tom May about it (who has been helpful before). Will dig up his email and see what he says. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

More bedtime readingEdit

[2]—the most recent phylogeny and dating of Proteaceae. Easy to miss with such an obscure title. Hesperian 12:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Abraham HalpernEdit

You may want to have a look there as well. Appears to have been improved by a Szasz fan. I've read diagonally this article, but even that doesn't seem to support the light in which the Halpern-Szasz issue is presented in Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just go back from a weekend break with no innernet..now where was I.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

FigsEdit

Okay, I'm giving my impression on F. maxima, since I'm not clear what you are actually asking. The description, I must say, is a particularly lacking part of the article under any evaluation criterion. Even as one who appreciates the topic, I'm finding the taxonomy section very confusing. As in Entoloma sinuatum, I'll gladly have a look into rewriting it if you want me to. The huge list of synonym suggest there is significant variation in the plant, possibly infraspecific taxa? I agree the Reproduction section is possibly too detailed. It can probably be reduced to a 2-paragraph primer and merged into "Ecology", though I have a hard time identifying what is species (or could be!) species-specific and what is not, as I have no familiarity with the plants in question (not to mention I am not an actual plant scientist even compared to you).

One of the greater-scale problem I see, which you might want to work on if you're going to take aim at several of these articles, is that information on the peculiar reproduction suystem in figs as a whole is spread across multiple articles (the genus article, Common fig and other species, syconium) and poorly focused, leaving no good article to aim {{main}} links at. I suspect using syconium as he main article and linking to it from others (including Ficus) might be, in the long run, the best course of action. Circéus (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Don't worry about rewriting anything yet. I was looking at overall meta-article structure WRT reproduction, which you've given me a good idea to work with. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Constellation task force assessmentEdit

Certainly Assessment boxes like the one for the cardiology task force are made by User:WP 1.0 bot. Just post to talk there and it can make your box easily. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I've not used bots in my time here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Aboriginal AstronomyEdit

Hi Casliber – thanks for your note. Yes there's quite a bit more out there which Duane Hamacher and I are slowly trying to get written up. You can find some more stuff on www.emudreaming.com and you may find some papers you havent come across on http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rnorris/papers/papers.htm

Have fun! RayNorris (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Great! I'll have a look and if I find anything specific to nag you on...I will :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Gene migration research, India --> AustraliaEdit

This http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21569688-genetic-evidence-suggests-four-millennia-ago-group-adventurous-indians points to a gene study you may be interested in.... Likely people from the Indian sub-continent mixed with Australian aboriginies 4xxxx years ago. An maybe brought dingos. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Will read anon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Glasser's choice theoryEdit

Could use some work if you're interested. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

ok – will take a look soonish....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Orange-bellied ParrotEdit

Neophema99 (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Hi. I would like to open for discussion the format of the entry for 'Orange-bellied Parrot'. As news occurs in the recovery program for this species, the limitations of the current format of the Wikipedia entry become more obvious. The heading, 'Conservation Status' should, I believe, be reserved for the actual conservation status in Australia, and in the three states, SA, Tasmania and Victoria. What follows after that, but still under that heading, at present, is a running commentary of events since about 2010. This is not acceptable. I propose another heading be inserted, 'Recovery Program' or similar. In it, a short history of the OBP recovery program could be given – since 1980 or so – and then, new events could be smoothly inserted as they happen. What do others think? The Wikipedia entry is an important first port of call for many people interested in this bird. We owe it to them, and to history, to provide a better entry.

Neophema99 (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Will take a look. sounds good – helps with seamless updating and no doubt there is a lot of info that could be added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

got any advice for writing a constellation FA?Edit

Thinking of diversifying and trying Corona B. Double sharp (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's easier than stars as there is less hardcore physics involved, but trickier as you have to make the material not "listy", which it sort of is by very nature. Smaller constellations are easier as there is less material to list generally. Star guide books, alot of which are on google, are good for general overview, how to find things, what's next to what etc. but alot of their factual info (distance/luminosity) is outdated. I have even suspected this in newer reprints/editions where new material is coming out. SIMBAD is a godsend and makes finding other material easy. I was using it as a ref itself but probably better to use the refs it cites. Overall I find astronomy articles more challenging than biology ones – trickeir to make engaging. We can collaborate on CrB if you like as I did plan on taking it All the Way at some point and then having it as a double mainpage with CrA. Collaborating is good as it makes for less work in some ways – each of us can copyeidt the other etc. 20:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Just popping in during some of the rare free time I have at the moment to say that the hardest part of the constellation articles is figuring out exactly what objects to write about, since there is generally quite a bit of discretion in whether or not something should be in the article. I generally try to write about all stars brighter than magnitude 5.0, and the most-studied astronomical objects within the constellation, as well as a few other things such as extremes (e.g. R136a1) and unusual objects. One tip to find notable stars, I've found, is this SIMBAD query, which lists all Bayer, Flamsteed, and variable stars in each constellation by number of refs. Of course further research is necessary for other stars without said designations, but it's a good start. I would help, but I don't anticipate having much free time at all until at least December. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
StringTheory11 Wow! Great idea/find! That really helps. Agree with what you've said. I think it is good to get these in order as it also highlights what other articles are underdone or incorrect etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Yup the small size was part of the reason I chose CrB (it's not the only reason though :-P). I'm cool with a collaboration. ST11's suggestions, as always, make a lot of sense. Going to read through some constellation FAs to get an idea of what to write – not least CrA... Double sharp (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Double sharp, I have started buffing with this one. Just arting with the brighter stars – SIMBAD is best place to start and then chasing refs. Not sure how much you know about them (figuring distance from parallax etc...) so just ask away..or start on deep sky objects and I'll continue with stars (??) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Carcinoma in situEdit

The carcinoma in situ page has been updated and it explains the different views that sometimes carcinoma in situ is seen as a cancer and sometimes it is not. You will probably remember earlier this year that you supported changing my use of the term "invasive cancer" to "cancer". The expression "invasive cancer" is used frequently in books particularly when talking about cancer of the cervix and in my opinion using the term "invasive cancer" can improve clarity. What do you think of the explanations in the carcinoma in situ article? Snowman (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

As it reads right now, which ones are you thinking should have invasive added to them? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, I have phrased it badly above, but you seem to have understood me. I should have said that you did not support my use of "invasive cancer" and you preferred the use of "cancer" instead. Actually, to me, it is not as simple as just inserting the word "invasive". Back then, I saw a better phrase in a reference and I thought about using it, because I thought that it would be accurate, readable, and I hoped keep everyone happy; however, the situation become unnecessarily tense and I felt like I was walking on eggs (and you know what that means). I did not get around to developing the article any further nor mentioning the "magical" phrase. I will see if I can find the phrase again. I recall that the solution was to use a short phrase in the place of cancer or invasive cancer in the introduction. I am talking in riddles at the present time, because I want to make sure that I can find that phrase again, and that will mean thinking about the introduction again. Snowman (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, let me know what you are thinking of once you get it clear. It is an intriguing question. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I would recommend the amendment belew, because the demarcation between non-cancer and cancer varies according to the literature, as we have seen, and this is made more difficult by a simplified language and vocabulary used to communicate the complex situation to patients. A definition of cancer that includes in-situ cancer is well established, but perhaps the world of the cytologist or histopathologist is a small world, where to say "invasive cancer" is not unusual. This is the current line in the introduction; "Cervical cytology tests can often detect precursors of cervical cancer and enable early successful treatment.". I think that it would be more accurate if it said something like; "The main aim of cervical cytology screening is to detect precursors of cancer and early cervical cancer to enable early successful treatment.". In this new line a full spectrum from viral changes to dysplasia to carcinoma-in-situ to early invasive cancer is included, so the controversy over where to put the non-cancer/cancer line disappears, and the meaning is clear no matter where the reader puts the line in his or her own mind-map. Snowman (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I reworded it like this to make it flow better yet be inclusive and cover all interpretations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
After some deep thought, I think that your edit is good enough. Snowman (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • What do you think about making a joint nomination with me to take the cervix article to FA review sometime? I would not be planning to edit much of the "History" and "Other animals" sections, because I do not know much about those topics. I am not usually on the nominator's side of the fence, but I would be willing to step into that role here, partly to test the water. Snowman (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea – the prerequisites for being a nominator are being reasonably familar with the article and having the ability to address issues raised at FAC. Do you see anything else that needs fixing before listing it at FAC? 02:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh good. I would like to have a long look at the article before FA nomination, and I expect that I will not feel happy with the article as a potential FA nomination for several weeks. There is some content and page organization in the article (as it is now) that I would like to reflect on. The peer review is also worth re-visiting to see what was not achieved there. I will probably attempt to start a few discussions on the article talk page where relevant. Do you have any time frame in mind or any particular schedule of your own to work around? Of course, I would ask you to constructively criticize my work whenever you think that anything can be improved, and I will try to focus on the issue and answer honestly and objectively trying not to be fractious nor stubborn, with a view to learning from my errors. It think that it will work better like that, than keeping quite or not speaking up when you do not agree with your co-nominator. I am saying that because I guessed that you have not felt easy about not supporting your co-nominator in FA reviews previously. Also, as before, please be alert to my writing style, which can sometimes need re-phrasing owing to clumsy grammar, although the content is often unambiguous (to me at least). Apart from that, it could be challenging writing for general readers and even more challenging writing for specialist readers that are unfamiliar with the small world of histopathology. Snowman (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Snowmanradio I have no time scale on this so it sorta takes as long as it takes. The refs need fixing for page numbers. The material is pretty good – only thing from PR left is double checking lymphatic drainage really I thought. Anyway. Posting things step by step on talk page is good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I would have though that the "Function" heading would be about normal function. Surly, putting a barrier in front of the cx is not a normal function of the cervix. Also, oc pills are more about pharmacology and modified functioning of the cervix. Should the "Contraception" heading have its own level-2 heading? This has been discussed before, but it is worth starting another discussion on the talk page about this? Snowman (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that the human altering of function is fine there. I think it is fine as a level 3 heading underneath function Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
When medicines affect function, it is called pharmacology. Snowman (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In the introduction; "... the cervix is usually between 2 and 3 cm long and roughly round in shape". Change to: ?
1. "... the cervix is cylindrically shaped usually between 2 and 3 cm long and roughly round in cross section".
2. "... the cervix is usually between 2 and 3 cm long and roughly round in in cross section" Snowman (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the first one or something like it – will take a look now. I wonder if the fact it is roughly cylindrical makes saying it's round in cross-section redundant. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Your amendment looks find to me. Snowman (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Should there be more consistency in using {{main| under more of the headings where there is an obvious main article else where? Snowman (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Snowmanradio Yes that sounds like a good idea. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, I expect that I will add some when I do some editing there. Snowman (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Re Vaginal portion of cervix. Have you got any ideas on what to do with this article on the portio (or ectocervix)? I do not know why WP Anatomy has so many articles on sub-parts. If relevant, I expect that a formal discussion would be needed to consider a merge. Snowman (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it should be merged. Will post something. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I plan to watch for a while and express an opinion, if needed. Snowman (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
It is off to a good start over there. I think that there is nothing on the unreferenced portio page that can be copied over to the cervix page. We could start planing how to present the portio (and its various names) on the cervix page. Snowman (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In have found what to me looks like a 2003 copyrighted version of File:Cervix dilation sequence.svg, so I have started a deletion discussion on Commons. Commons administrators will now have a look at it. Initially, I left an message with the uploader on Commons to ask a technical question about the image, and I noticed that he is currently blocked for three months, so I did a search for other copies of the cervix dilation image. The image should show the babies head moving down the birth canal as the cervix dilates, but the head looks stuck. The image is on about a dozen or more Wikis, so they might all be removed by a bot in due course. I am not sure if the image needs removing from the Cervix page at this juncture or not, so I wonder what you think about removal from the en Wiki. Snowman (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear – I suspect it will have to be removed, though maybe hold for a moment and see if an explanation is forthcoming. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I recently found a photograph of a rare parrot with the wrong copyright and it was deleted from Commons one week after I started the deletion discussion. Snowman (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
That sounds in keeping with deletion discussions elsehwere – around 1 week. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Update: Image was deleted this yesterday. Snowman (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The Cervical cancer article has had a lot of work on it since about June, and it is well worth looking at. I expect that we could shorten (or otherwise amend) the section on cervical cancer in the "cervix" article, because the "cervical cancer" article offers a good readable account. Snowman (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
@Snowmanradio: I will take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Re HPV vaccines. Sometimes, I like to tidy up the linked pages. This article was moved from the singular to the pleural in March 2014. I am aware that there is more than one HPV vaccine, but I would expect this to be on the singular name, unless there something controversial about it that I have missed. Snowman (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
@Snowmanradio: yes that is unusual and I think I prefer it at singular. I think it is worth discussing on the talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The "Anatomical abnormalities" section looks like a mixture of acquired and congenital diseases. Could this be organized differently? I nearly did a reorganization, but a little re-organization does not change much, and I suspect that it would be easier to do a bit of a re-write. Also, it may be possible to expand the section with a little about the developmental abnormalities of the female genital tract seen in Cryptophthalmos syndrome, Johanson-Blizzard syndrome, Rokitansky Anomalod, and as less commonly seen in Roberts syndrome and Trisomy 18 syndrome. These diseases are not at the front of my mind, however these are in the index of my rather old second-hand book on human malformation. This is not a small change, so I welcome your opinion. Snowman (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
@Snowmanradio: let me take a look. I don't recall it right now and I thought I was happy with it before but will look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I have become unexpectedly busy in real life, so I have not had much time for editing the Wiki. I hope that I will be able to contribute with more editing and work on the cervix article again after about two or three months . Snowman (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@Snowmanradio: no worries. I found that I have lost interest in it. My free time (of which I have little) has to be enjoyable and thus something I have real enthusiasm for. I found I did get a bit enthusiastic about this one but comes and goes. More interested in frigatebird and brachychiton rupestris now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Also orange-bellied parrot – very interesting story. I find writing about extinct species makes me sad (I leave them to FunkMonk) but rare ones are ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Apart from manual editing, I was hoping to write a few scripts for fun to do scanning and mass editing tasks on the Wiki this Autumn and Winter, but can not participate in a meaningful way at the present time. I plan to return when I can and I will look to see what you and User FunkMonk are doing then. Incidentally, have you any thoughts on why discussions about anatomy topics tend to be rather brittle? I might ask that question on the WP Anatomy talk page. Snowman (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by 'brittle'? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I will ask open-ended questions instead. Do you have any observations about discussions on anatomy topics? Snowman (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

FACEdit

I know you like to do single species, but would you like to join me for turtle? LittleJerry (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it is a good one. I am feeling a bit unenthusiastic about anything much at the moment. I need to get a spark of interest. I'll take a look and see how I go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Australian spelling questionEdit

An anonymous IP, 2600:1700:7E31:5710:2C89:9DBC:EE9F:2AC2, has been editing articles about Australian spiders, most of which are marked as in Australian English. Most changes are ok (although some are pointless, such as capitalizing the first letter in a piped wikilink, and some are against the MOS (like putting "#" before the issue number in a citation). However, they also change spellings in "-our" to "-or", e.g. "colour" to "color". I'm aware that this is perhaps not clear in Australian English, but as a Brit, I've relied on this for example. What's your view? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not a view - Australian english utilises our not or, simple as that. That's why we have engvar au - but there as some taggers who claim it is a problem - but finding Australian items changed from our to or - is wrong. period. It is very clear in usage. JarrahTree 09:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, that's what I thought (although I do see "labor" in Australian English). Unfortunately it means that all of 2600:1700:7E31:5710:2C89:9DBC:EE9F:2AC2's edits need to be reviewed. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The spelling of Labor is a political curiosity, the new party wanted to appeal to the working class yet distance themselves from the British movement (or was it more complicated, don't remember). cygnis insignis 13:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Thankfully we werent alive then cygnis - it was deep in the past Australian Labor Party#Name and spelling JarrahTree 13:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi!Edit

Hello! I've noticed your username in the list of FAC mentors. I'm currently writing an article draft about Indonesian homegardens, and I'm aiming a featured-article criteria for it. However, I'm afraid that the writing might be inadequate in its flow or readability, and I'm also afraid that I might accidentally came into indications of original research. If you have time, any revision or any form of constructive criticism will be appreciated. Thank you in advance! Dhio-270599 15:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the revisions! (especially the correction on collective nouns and species names) Dhio-270599 02:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 32, 2019)Edit

Internal organs.png

The human body has several organs.

Hello, Casliber.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Organ (anatomy)

Please be bold and help to improve this article!


Previous selections: Butter churning in Nepal • Flea market


Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations


Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

DraftEdit

Cas can you take a look at my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hotel_Hollywood pretty please?--Carrolquadrio (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually I might make two articles, one about Doris and the other about the Hotel-what do you think? --Carrolquadrio (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Carrolquadrio: two articles might be possible. Doris is fine, tthe Hollywood Hotel might be fine as well but might be safer with another source or two discussing it...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Friendly questionEdit

Hello Cas, I'm just dropping by to ask if you'd be willing to evaluate the two pending WP:FOUR article candidates, which have been there for seven days. (One is nominated by myself; the other is by another user). Thanks! Ergo Sum 01:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

GAEdit

Thanks for reviewing slender glass lizard. I really appreciate it and your edits. SL93 (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@SL93: I try to give it as big a shove towards FAC as possible. If you want to proceed that way, I'll take another look and see what else needs buffing. Alternatively try and do a few more biology GAs first (or whatever) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for WeebillEdit

Updated DYK query.svgOn 11 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Weebill, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the weebill (pictured), measuring 8 to 9 cm (3.1 to 3.5 in) long, is Australia's smallest bird? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Weebill. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Weebill), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 33, 2019)Edit

Hello, Casliber.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Great Spirit

Please be bold and help to improve this article!


Previous selections: Organ (anatomy) • Butter churning in Nepal


Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations


Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Moors murdersEdit

Hey Cas. I think running an RfC was a good idea, but my sense is that things have gone beyond an RfC and without a lot of people willing to do some heavy lifting, checking diffs and sources within a structured review setting, the bickering will continue. So I've been bold and suggested it be taken to FAR. I realize Eric was blocked, and had been blocked when the rewrite began, but he should be able to participate when his block expires. As you know, stewardship is poorly understood and it's hard - especially for editors whose activity levels have decreased. My concern is setting precedent for rewriting without going through the process, which was set up specifically for these types of situations if I'm correct? Anyway, sorry, brevity isn't my forte, but wanted to let you know what I was thinking. Best, Victoria (tk) 02:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I think FAR is the next logical step Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm wimp and don't want to get too involved in that talk page discussion. Can you, as coordinator submit to FAR, or tell EEng to? I'm willing to try to trawl through diffs once it gets there, but my time is limited and I don't want to commit to something I can't see through. Victoria (tk) 03:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
This is the annoying thing about being a coordinator - I can't really nominate it but anyone on that page can. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I thought. Big sigh. It's late here and I'm about to turn in. I'll nominate it if I can get to it tomorrow, but whether I can be around is always a big if these days. Regardless, I'll keep an eye on it. Victoria (tk) 03:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
If you nominate it and state succinctly what the issues are, there is no need to get or remain heavily involved. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Um, for the record, EC was not blocked when I started; he was blocked the next day, and I didn't know about it until someone mentioned it ten days later. Can someone enlighten me about this mysterious "FAR" and why its name is always invoked in such hushed tones? The article is clearly no longer an FA (and never was, now that all the sourcing problems are apparent) -- it will take a lot of work to get it even to GA level. So shouldn't the star just come off now talk of FA again be way down the road? EEng 09:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me Cas, but I find I am not able to post on EEng's talk (page size and scripts). @EEng:, the object of FAR might be seen as retaining the star, you and several others have identified areas for improvement (I agree the sociological and media reactions might be included, for example), so outline that at the review. I am sort of across the bones of the discussion, and see suggestions that FAR is the path forward, is it more complicated than that? ~ cygnis insignis 09:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, I am absolutely, positively going to make an effort to cut that page down. I can't have people feeling they can't post. Give me a day or two. EEng 14:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@EEng: - WP:FAR is the process by which a Featured Article is reviewed. They don't automatically lose their status but are reviewed, like GAs are etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

Cas, I see that SchroCat initiated the nom, [3], which is good. Can the coords take over the notifications (relevant Wikiprojects per the talk page banners, Eric, PoD, top 10 contributors, etc)? Or Schro, or EEng, since he's challenging the text? I'm not capable of editing today, so can't help. Victoria (tk) 14:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Victoria. I think Eric is probably aware of it, and I’ve had emails from one or two others about it too. I didn’t want it to go down this route, and was trying to sort one section on the talk page without the section being tag-bombed and near-unreadable for anyone wanting to read it. That didn’t seem to please EEng, who’s reverted it out and carried on tag bombing the rest. I’m not sure this is the best approach to improving what was there, but it’s clear my efforts weren’t wanted, so I’m stepping away from it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it's not ideal but it's process we've followed for more than a decade and at this point seems to be the only option. I've posted at the talk page; EEng should make the notifications since he's challenging. Thanks Cas for hosting this discussion here. Victoria (tk) 16:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not challenging anything, -- not formally, anyway, my comment above was just an observation. I'm just taking stock of the article's problems and preparing to address them. EEng 16:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Cas, I'm out of the review (and the MM article entirely) - I've taken them off watchlist and walked away; it's just too difficult to try and help when there is so much hostility and aggression going on. Feel free to cap the first part of the review (to just above your please for neutral comments), as I'm sure it'll only fester as badly as the talk page is. Good luck being ringmaster with that, but hopefully with the number of admins there, the aggressive battlefield approach may calm down a little. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Cas. Given the way that the discussion at this page has evolved, I'm wondering if it might not be better to close your RfC as a "no consensus" (which is my reading of it at the moment) and to allow the FAR to proceed unhindered. Even if consensus should develop, it might be severely constraining to have either of of the versions become set in stone; and it's been 8 days, so it isn't too early. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 15:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it can be clearly closed as "no consensus/moved to FAR". Best closed by another admin and I'd support that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm still uninvolved: I'm happy to close it. I'll go ahead and do that. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

Vanamonde93, Casliber: The trouble is, no consensus for what? As far as I'm concerned, no consensus means no consensus to revert the article to two months ago i.e. no consensus to let this stand edit [4], which sent the article back to June 26 by unilaterally tossing out 200+ edits by ten editors. The edit summary for that edit cited "BRD", but if that made sense then you could arbitrarily send any article back any amount of time by claiming that everything in between "lacks consensus", no matter how long it's been there, how many editors participated, and how friendly the editing involved, just so long as there wasn't an explicity pow-wow somewhere putting an explicit imprimatur on everyone's edits. Therefore, I submit, the edit I just linked was the bold edit, its proponents bore the burden of justifying it, and no consensus means they failed to do that. And that's before you consider that their primary not-really-an-argument argument ("The June 26 version is a high-quality FA version") has now been exposed as complete nonsense.
Certainly the closing logic cannot passively be that there's no consensus so therefore the article stays in the WRONGVERSION it accidentally happened to be in when protection was applied.
Though if truth be told it was no accident. When protection was first applied, the article was in the current version all editors had been working on up to that very day. Then three editors swooped in at the protecting admin's talk page and pressured him into reverting the article -- still under the protection that admin had imposed -- to June 26; the admin's comment was "I relent" [5]. And that's why it "just so happened" to be in the June 26 version when the RfC started. Truly an extraordinary sequence of events.
Combine all this with the fact that the three major proponents of reverting to June 26 have all declared that they no longer care, have unwatched, don't give a shit, won't participate, and so on ([6][7][8]) and the conclusion as to how to close the RfC becomes inescapable. EEng 21:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
In this case, "no consensus" as I see it means "the discussion needs to continue until some of you persuade some of the others". In general, a version of an article that has been through multiple prose reviews (such as at FAC) can be said to have consensus for the prose; so yes, in that case it would be the version that existed before you began editing it. However, that applies only to prose; a version that has flagrant breaches of WP:V cannot be said to have consensus, and BRD cannot be used to prevent those issues from being addressed, or failing that, tagged. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@EEng: you'd agree that its mere existence now (given it's at FAR) is muddying the waters going forward and we should try and keep focus in one place? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
(Sorry, I've kind of made a mess by trying to copy this over to T:Moors murders -- hope I didn't munge up anyone's post there...) Oh, I want the RfC over, but at the moment the article's unprotected it's got to be in some version. From Vanamonde's argument above (about WP:V and so on) that has to be the version current when protection was first imposed (and before the admin was pressured into into changing it to July 26). I'm sorry you're both having to spend your time one this; I'm sorry everyone's having to spend their time on this. EEng 21:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
(You did conflict with my closure, but don't worry about it): Yes, it's got to be in some version; and per convention, in this case BRD, it will sit in the version you don't like. But, the RFC was "no consensus defaulting to the old version", not "consensus for the old version"; meaning discussion needs to continue, and the old version isn't endorsed. I think you can live with that version while you discuss things. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Normal editing resumes
Well, OK, but why does the article have to "sit"? Why doesn't normal editing resume? I'm not trying to be difficult but this world of FAs seems completely topsy-turvy. EEng 21:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I recommend asking one of the admins who full-protected the page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
OK thanks. I must say it's a good thing Wikipedia's not a bureaucracy, because if it were just IMAGINE how complicated this would get. EEng 21:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rock parrotEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rock parrot you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rock parrotEdit

The article Rock parrot you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Rock parrot for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rock parrotEdit

The article Rock parrot you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Rock parrot 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

GAsEdit

I have two GA reviews that I worked on for Talk:Warcraft (film)/GA1 (close to being failed) and Talk:Thuy Trang/GA1 (passed). I just have two questions - How do I transclude the GA reviews to the talk pages and where can I find the template that you used for slender glass lizard? SL93 (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

If you look are reviews, you'll see many different templates/formats etc. I just cut-and-pasted one I'd used before as comprehensive yet simple. Just look around or cut and paste mine, I am not fussed. As far as transclusion, that's odd as I thought theywere transcluded automatically. I am not aware of any for or against discussion on this and recommend asking it at WT:GA or something. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Western yellow robinEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Western yellow robin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 34, 2019)Edit

Hello, Casliber.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Bianca Wahlgren Ingrosso

Please be bold and help to improve this article!


Previous selections: Great Spirit • Organ (anatomy)


Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations


Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Suillus bovinus scheduled for TFAEdit

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 19, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 19, 2019. Thanks!—Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Holy Cow batman! That's cool!Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hepatitis EEdit

Cas Liber I would like to thank you for reviewing Hepatitis E, it was a pleasure working with you, to better the article, thank you again--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Pekarangan peer reviewEdit

Hello! First of all, thank you for the corrections you have pointed out in the review page. Face-smile.svg If you have time, can you re-review the page and reply to some points I've made in the review? I'd be happy to know whether the article is assuredly adequate in its quality. Thank you! Dhio-270599 10:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!Edit

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Thanks for your support in my recent RfA. It was most appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Rock parrotEdit

Updated DYK query.svgOn 25 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rock parrot, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the rock parrot often nests in the old burrows of seabirds? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rock parrot. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Rock parrot), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 35, 2019)Edit

Hello, Casliber.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Pitchfork

Please be bold and help to improve this article!


Previous selections: Bianca Wahlgren Ingrosso • Great Spirit


Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations


Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

A barnstar for you!Edit

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Hey, Cas, thanks for all the work you've done here on quality articles. You are a model Wikipedian and I am happy you're still here. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Heh thanks! what would really make my day is more folks commenting keep/remove at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Featured_article_removal_candidates (where y'all can hear the tumbleweeds a-blowing...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/C.G. Jung House MuseumEdit

Cas Liber, there has been a response to your DYK review here, including the suggestion of an ALT hook. Please stop by at your earliest convenience to resume your review. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Western yellow robinEdit

The article Western yellow robin you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Western yellow robin 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) 11:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 September newsletterEdit

The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 36, 2019)Edit

Hello, Casliber.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Organ (anatomy)

Please be bold and help to improve this article!


Previous selections: Pitchfork • Bianca Wahlgren Ingrosso


Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations


Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions


Please helpEdit

We are now less than 3k - how can you help? when you create a new article - please try to complete the biota assessment, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unknown-importance_Australian_biota_articles when you deal with an older article - it is well worth going to the talk page and tweaking for biota.. Thanks for your work in biota articles !! cheers JarrahTree 00:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok will take a look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
but... no sweat, if you have missed the odd xxx talk pages or so, darren and I do find them in the end, well most... JarrahTree 00:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Jew with a coin DYKEdit

The page doesn't say that buyers of the picture apply the instruction, it's an OR.Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I suggest discussing that with Icewhiz when he is unblocked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Four AwardEdit

Four Award.svg Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Rock parrot. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Just had to say nice work on the 13 year gap from article creation to FA-class! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked userEdit

Just to let you know - you thankfully blocked User:Infrontofthedoor but he/she is still vandalising. Regards Denisarona (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

(sigh) ....have to do RL chores soon. Need some revdeleting? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Don't forget to always disable talk page access to this nazi LTA. El_C 15:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah ok. good point Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

FA nom Digital media use and mental healthEdit

Hi Casliber how are you? Thanks again for all your help with this article. I was hoping you might consider reviewing this again per FA criteria. Thanks :) --[E.3][chat2][me] 06:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Banksia caleyiEdit

Coming soon to a TFA near you! "red lantern banksia" gets 600 ghits (verbatim); "Caley's banksia" gets 1400. I can only use one in a TFA blurb. Do you have a preference? - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I prefer "red lantern banksia" but hard to argue with "Caley's banksia" given the ghits I mean most of us just use the latin name anyway.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Happy to go with your preference (here and generally). Keep 'em coming. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 37, 2019)Edit

Vegetable udon noodle soup.jpg

A vegetable soup prepared using udon noodles

Hello, Casliber.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Vegetable soup

Please be bold and help to improve this article!


Previous selections: Organ (anatomy) • Pitchfork


Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations


Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Yellow-faced honeyeater scheduled for TFAEdit

This is to let you know that the Yellow-faced honeyeater article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 8, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 8, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!Edit

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Casliber. 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.
Thanks Cas for making the time to come up with something useful. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
(shrugs) it ain't useful yet - you could do it for WP:FL methinks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
We already have a background page for FL, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Instructions has been there for years. But in any case, FL never claims to be "vital lists" or claim some kind of provenance. It knows its place. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Aha, never noticed that! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Casliber. 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.

Also, I've made some edits to the background page...fleshed it out. pbp 21:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Would you like me to reach out to what's left of the Core Bios project? Should a regular post be enough, or an RfC? It should be relatively uncontroversial pbp 00:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure. the more eyes (and hands) the merrier. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 Done here pbp 23:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Banksia caleyi scheduled for TFAEdit

This is to let you know that the Banksia caleyi article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 13, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 13, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of King brown snakeEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article King brown snake you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Casliber".