Talk:Mating of yeast

Untitled

There is a lot of pertinent information but I feel that the content in some of the sections is quite repetitive and, as mentioned by others before, not well referenced. T.M. (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This article has a lot of good information, but I think that it could stand to be simplified, with links to more detail explainations for those who want more (e.g. make a mating type switch section, a detailed section on the regulation of a and alpha genes) Sir1 05:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This article definitely should be simplified and merged with either yeast or Saccharomyces cerevisiae. --LostLeviathan 19:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a nice, possibly graduate level, summary of one of the basic mechanisms of control of gene expression, the concept of how a few 'actors' can produce multiple results, depending on how they interact with each other, and what genetic targets are available. There is more detail on the mechanism of the mating type switch, and why it usually results in a switch of type, in the Lodish reference]18:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Can diploid cells mate? Not clear in the article.129.31.72.52 15:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

After the pheromone

Answer to previous question: no, a/α diploids cannot mate.

And I was wondering: there is no discussion of the events that occur after an a meets an α, and that's when things get even more interesting. Woodlore (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs updating

For reasons that are not well understood, the repair of the MAT locus after cutting by the HO endonuclease almost always results in a mating type switch.

http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/12/11/1726.abstract Mcm1 regulates donor preference controlled by the recombination enhancer in Saccharomyces mating-type switching —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.184.111.79 (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the subject?

Is this about Saccharomyces or yeast in general? The article keeps switching back and forth in mid-text.CarlFink (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Bolding

Can someone explain the apparent convention on bolding the a but not the α mating type? There's nothing on it in the article. Kajabla (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The amount of detail in the article is great, but could definitely be more concise. The majority of the article has no references, and while it is extremely detailed about all of the factors and steps leading up to how Saccharomyces mates, the article stops short of explaining the actual mechanism of reproduction, which seems like an extremely important part of your topic, and there is not a single mention of how that mating might physically occur. Ags5930 (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Change of reference style without consensus and contrary to Wikipedia policy

With this edit and the next one, User:Boghog has repeated a behaviour that I have warned him for repeatedly in the past, changing the article's reference style, without consensus and contrary to Wikipedia policy, to Vancouver from the established Last, First style for citation authors. This appears to be a direct violation of WP:CITET, which states in terms "Because templates can be contentious, editors should not add citation templates, or change an article with a consistent citation format to another, without gaining consensus" (its emphasis).

I intend to revert this unjustified (and I believe wholly unjustifiable) change, but wish to hear first if there are any good reasons for such a change here. Further, I'm minded to investigate Boghog's conduct on other articles; I had imagined he had stopped doing this (there was no more trouble in Evolutionary Biology), but it seems I was over-optimistic in this regard. If contrary-to-policy edits are numerous rather than the odd individual mistake, then clearly action would be required to prevent any recurrence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Before my first edit, for example in this version or this version, the predominate sytle was Vancouver. My edits were to restore that style. Boghog (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

(ec)User:Chiswick Chap, the ins and outs of the Vancouver system (which I hadn't heard of until now, haha) go over my head. Whatever Boghog was doing was prompted by the edits by User:RowanJ LP, no? WP:CITEVAR of course is the relevant guideline here and it seems to me that before escalating to AN/ANI you could post on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, and see what the MOS crowd thinks of this and other cases. If Boghog is indeed making a (disruptive) habit out of changing styles it quickly becomes a matter for one of the noticeboards. Oh, RowanJ, there likely will not be a GA review while there is a dispute like this going on. Drmies (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll see whether we can't reach an amicable agreement (per the item below, I didn't spot your post at once), but will take your advice as necessary if we can't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

(the Drmies comment wasn't above before I wrote the following:) User:Boghog: I see; well, at least that sounds superficially reasonable, but those two stages do not prove what you hope they do.

There is no good reason to choose the 2013 version, as the article was still tiny at that stage, and despite being some years old had had less than 100 mainly desultory edits. By the end of 2012, for instance, the article had just one citation, and it had forenames spelt out in full. Indeed, all the Vancouver citations you mention for the 8 December 2013 version were added on that day in a single edit by Chaya5260, hardly an "established style" at that point.

Nobody added any more citations to the article until 30 July 2019 (!) when Artoria2e5 used a mix of ref styles for 13 inline citations, "Doe, JS" (not the Vancouver "Doe JS", and not quite the usual Last, First style "Doe, J.S." either, but intermediate between them: so no "established style" at that point either. Your other diff selects 20 December 2023, at which point the article still has the 13 inline refs added by Artoria2e5 on 30 July 2019, so it doesn't prove anything further.

In short, despite appearances, this article has never had a properly established ref style (so your change was from no-established-style to Vanc, not such a great crime, but without consensus all the same). The recent appearance of the article with Last, First refs is due to RowanJ LP; and the switch to Vancouver, which the article has never used to any great degree, is due to you.

My view in such a case is that since we (finally) have an editor interested enough in the topic to invest the effort to double the article's size and bring it to GAN is that we should let them use whichever ref style they consider appropriate: that style is Last, First. I suggest therefore that we simply revert, assuming good faith from all parties. I do feel that it would be much better, before making such changes, to seek consensus, as policy clearly states (quotation above), and I hope you will take care to do so when changing the ref style in any other article in future. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Boghog, please also note the posting by Drmies above; I hope we can agree on a course of action which will make all that unnecessary (and which will let the GAN proceed). Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

There were significant periods in the history of this article where the predominant citation style was Vancouver. At the time of my first edit, there was a mix of styles. According to CITEVAR, imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles is generally considered helpful. Therefore, my edits were consistent with CITEVAR. According to CITEVAR, if there is a disagreement about which citation style should be used in an article, it should be decided by consensus on the article's talk page, and I will abide by that. Personally, I am in favor of using the Vancouver style.

Vancouver is a widely used citation style in scientific literature, known for its compact display of authors that doesn't overwhelm the rest of the citation. It eliminates verbose first1, last1, ... citation template parameters that clutter raw wiki text, making it more difficult to edit. If someone is truly interested in author's first names, they can consult the full publications, with numerous links to articles and citation databases included in the citations. In short, I do not see a problem with using Vancouver style authors. Boghog (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Um, no problem except you're basically trying to enforce your stated personal preference and override Wikipedia policy. I don't agree at all with your "difficult to edit" argument, the Last, First parameters are straightforward and provide both more readability and the convenience of knowing authors' first names, which makes finding author-links considerably easier, for example. But I agree with you that this should be up to RowanJ LP in this case, so let's see what they have to say. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

As I already have explained above, my edits were consistent with CITEVAR and therefore do not override Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, "stated personal preference" equally applies to both parties. Boghog (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

User:RowanJ LP: Given that you have nominated this article for a GAN (Good Article Nomination) review, I would like to clear up the dispute about the citation style (see above) to ensure it doesn't interfere with the review process. Do you have a preference? Good luck with the review! Cheers. Boghog (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I really don't have a preference, I either let the automatic system do the work or when I create a citation manually I just use whatever fits, I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia editing and I'll be honest and didn't know of any certain citation styles before reading this. If I was making a mistake due to the way I cite and/or if I caused a further dispute then I'm sorry. Also, what style should I be using if the other one didn't meet Wikipedia standards? RowanJ LP (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

User:RowanJ LP, you may use any citation style you wish. Evolutionary Biology uses the last, first format that you used (Doe, John S.); Medicine uses the so-called Vancouver format, which is Doe JS; other people sometimes use Doe, JS, and yet others use John S. Doe. Boghog likes Vancouver and often edits over at Medicine. If you were happy with the style you used, we can put it all back like that now. Please let us know your choice. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about this, if you're happy using the citation template just as it comes, that basically gives the last, first that you had. If that's the reason, we can we go with that? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Your question already has been answered with I really don't have a preference. Boghog (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

To directly answer your questions, both styles meet Wikipedia standards and you did not make any mistake. Boghog (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, as the article didn't have an established style, the GA nominator found it convenient to fill in the standard cite journal template with last, first, and that happens to be the normal style in Evolutionary Biology, I suggest we let them go with that and put the citations back in that style. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The article did have a predominant style which was Vancouver before the GA nominator's first edit, so I suggest that we stick with the Vancouver style. Boghog (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

According to page page statistics, not only did I standarize the citations, but I was also was a significant contributor to the overall content of this article. Hence I do have some say in how the citations are formatted. Boghog (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and you've both expressed a preference, and agreed that more than one path is possible. However you are incorrect about the history, which I have set out above. Vanc was introduced only partially, by one editor, and in that one edit in a mix of citation styles, submit never became established in any other editor's work, and seems not even to have been a goal in that one editor's mind. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Your analysis is deeply flawed. This was the editor who introduced the majority of citations during their contributions. How did you conclude that Vancouver style wasn't a goal for this editor? It was clearly on their mind, as most of the added citations followed the Vancouver style. Boghog (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Because that user, in that single edit, used a mix of styles, as has now been stated repeatedly. There never has been a fixed use of Vancouver in this article. I suggest we just let the GA not proceed now in the style they were using. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

In this edit, 7 out of the 8 added references were in Vancouver style and the 8th added reference (Bernstein H and Bernstein C) was a close variant of Vancouver. Clearly that editor meant to use Vancouver style. To state that there has never been a fixed use of Vancouver is not accurate. There is currently a fixed use of Vancouver style. Boghog (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Finally, I would like to point out that there was no dispute about the citation style until your objection was raised. My intention was not to jeopardize this GAN. I hope that we can work this out equitably. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes. All we need to do for now is to let them go on as they were before your edits. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Or we could stick with the current style. Boghog (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Um, we're chasing our tail round and round here. There is no justification for the current style; since we agree we are free to choose do what GA nom did (and now all three of us agree that that choice is a valid solution), I'll put things back to that for them, they are new and don't deserve more of this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The justification for the current style is that it is widely used and for significant portions of the article history, it was the predominate style. Contrary to the heading of this talk page thread, my edits were compatible with Wikipedia policy. Boghog (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

No, that's simply mistaken, it's not true. Please read the analysis I did above, which can be verified from the article history; or if you don't feel like doing that, then please step back from this discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is true. From 8 December 2013 until 14 March 2019, 8½ of the 11 citations that listed authors followed the Vancouver style. This fits the definition of predominant: being most frequent or common. During this time period, Vancouver was clearly the established style. As late as 20 December 2023, Vancouver was still predominate (8 of 14). Boghog (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for stating your view. What you are missing here is that those citations were added in a single edit by Chaya5260, the only edit that user has ever made to the article. This does not "establish a style"; it was a fire-and-forget edit, using a mix of styles, not following the previous style, and the article, being very technical, was then basically untouched for years. There was one other fire-and-forget contribution, by Claudine.lebosquain on 21 March 2014, at 'Decision to mate' which added 3 refs, none of them Vancouver, so she didn't even look at styles either; after that there were only minor "gnome"-style edits which do not imply that any editor even looked at the citations until RowanJ LP's edits of 9 May 2024, which we are now considering. So, no style can be remotely called "established" at any time during this article's evolution. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Why does it matter that the citations were added in a single edit? The editor was very efficient. Boghog (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Good question. Because it implies that the editor has decided to fire a one-shot improvement at the article, as often happens with student assignments, and can happen when an editor is basically interested in other things, but thinks an article is such a mess that someone really ought to do something a bit better (hours pass), and bang, here's a lump of text with refs. This picture is strongly reinforced by the mix of ref styles used: a bit of this, a bit of that, most likely copied from an article over here, another article over there, no attention whatsoever being paid to the styles. That sort of editing can be useful and productive, as it seems to have been in this case: but it cannot be said to establish a ref style, because neither that editor, nor anyone else for many years afterwards, visibly even thought about it. That's why. So, the article did not acquire an established style back then, and it still hasn't got one now: the article has had very few contributors of significant amounts of technical content (4, basically) and they all used different styles or mixes of styles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

In the context of this article, Vancouver style authors fits the definition of established (having existed for a long time). Boghog (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Um, no, a mixed muddle, unconsidered by any user, has existed for a long time. No style is established. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Then we will have to agree to disagree. Boghog (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mating of yeast/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: RowanJ LP (talk · contribs) 17:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Wolverine XI (talk · contribs) 08:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Note, the reviewer has elected to step away from this one, per Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_32#Biology_and_medicine_reviews. Archiving and returning to the queue. Ajpolino (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mating of yeast/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: RowanJ LP (talk · contribs) 17:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: BluePenguin18 (talk · contribs) 04:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   At 269 words, the lead is succinct and establishes that S. cerevisiae will be the model yeast for discussion while comparing against other yeast species

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Spot-checked citations 21, 35, 46, 65, and 67 at random:

   • Source 21 is incorrectly credited to the book authors Lennarz and Lane instead of the relevant chapter authors Sutton and Sternglanz. More importantly, Sutton and Sternglanz (2004)'s discussion of the MAT locus is brief and does not support the claim about genetic manipulations
   • Source 67 is Catalini et al. (2021), a paper on Drosophila melanogaster that is irrelevant to the claim and involves flies. Upon further inspection of this issue, Source 41 is Malek and Long (2019), another fly-related paper irrelevant to the claim it is meant to support.

   Sources 21, 41, and 67 were all added by RowanJ LP, so rather than investigate further, I will give them one week to assess the relevance of all the sources they added before I reassess whether the citations are actually sufficient for sustaining these scientific claims. If you need more time, please reach out!

   On reanalysis, the issues remain. I am now concerned that RowanJ LP added sources that appear to discuss yeast mating without considering whether they actually support the specific scientific claims being made. Once again, I am giving a week and asking that RowanJ LP reassess all of the citations they have added to this article for relevance:

   • Source 21 is now Lin et al. (2022), which minimally discusses the MAT locus, only considering what would happen if MATa replaced MATα in a haploid α cell, as opposed to this claim of what happens when both are present in the same cell.
   • Worryingly, Source 22 is Lengeler et al. (2000), a paper which never discusses diploid-like yeast cells, much less stating their behavior when starved. Source 22 was also added by RowanJ LP
   • Source 41 is now Bardwell (2005). While this paper does not explicitly describe the decision to mate as balancing energy conservation and speed, I do think it is sufficiently close to doing so.
   • Source 67 is now Eckert-Boulet et al. (2011), a textbook chapter that never discusses the HMR region, much less the innate bias of yeast to use this region for DNA repair over the HML region.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Article would benefit from a discussion of a-like faker cells that have a1 and a2 inactivated. Currently working on adding this in, but it will take me a day or so to think how to simplify the content  Implemented

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comment: ViridianPenguin, are you planning on reviewing this, bcs you should return it to the queue otherwise, so someone else can. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if this looked inactive! Yes, I am almost done reviewing the article but have not updated the template over here. I am familiar with the technical aspects of yeast genetics, so I am also trying to keep this scientific article clear and accurate. Should be done by the end of this week! ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 05:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Ohh, good luck! Neither the review, nor the article had any changes in the past two weeks, so I thought it was inactive. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

ViridianPenguin gentle poke, Are you still planning to complete this review? Ajpolino (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

ViridianPenguin, it's been two weeks? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91, I can delete this for you if you like, so you return to the queue without losing your place. -- asilvering (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the nominator, I just wanted to take over this review as the reviewer wasn't doing anything. Though you should probably delete this, maybe someone else will review and pass it to GA. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@ViridianPenguin, final poke - I'll delete this review page to return it to the queue if you don't respond within a week. -- asilvering (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

If both the nominator and reviewer are nonresponsive I'm not sure it should be returned to the queue, I think it should just be closed as a fail and removed, but not sure if we have a clear policy on this. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

We don't have a clear policy on it, no. @RowanJ LP, I think Ganesha is right that we should fail it if you're not responsive, but if you're around and willing to be reviewed, and just aren't getting a review, please reply here so I know to send it back to the queue with WP:G6 instead (I think that's more fair, assuming you're still willing to do the work of responding to a review). -- asilvering (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I was waiting for the reviewer before making any responses and I'm willing to be commutative at this time. If there's anything I can do so this process of a GA review can go any faster I will. RowanJ LP (talk) RowanJ LP (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies all around to RowanJ LP for delaying their requested review far beyond the intended week, DoctorWhoFan91 for delaying a review they would have been willing to complete faster, and asilvering, Ajpolino, and Ganesha811 for wasting your time wondering where I disappeared to. College papers got in the way, but I am finally freed up again to handle the review over this weekend. After sailing past my mid-October intent to handle the review, I did not want to comment until I actually had confidence in my availability again. If for some reason this review is not finished by 14NOV2024, feel free to close it! ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 04:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Due to issues with the citations detailed above, I have given RowanJ LP one week to reassess their added citations for relevance before I return to assess their quality again. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 16:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I changed the citations 21, 41, and 67 to something else that might be more relevant/has better information. RowanJ LP (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

As described above, issues remain with Sources 21 and 67, and I detected an issue with Source 22 in this re-analysis. Please reassess all of the citations you added in your 09MAY2024 editing for relevance to the specific scientific claims they appear alongside. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 15:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

For documentation, I am noting that between Jan 2023 and May 2024, RowanJ LP had their GA nominations of Damar Hamlin, Windows 10, and Statin quick-failed because in all three cases, only one citation was changed. While this editor unquestionably added many of the citations to this article, this prior behavior suggests that they see their role as making sure every claim has a footnote, rather than either finding relevant citations or removing unsupported claims. More importantly, DMacks noted in April 2023 that their contributions to Tetranitratoxycarbon, Levomethamphetamine, 4-PrO-DMT, Holmium phosphide, and Tetrahydrocannabivarin all suffered from the improper citation issues that I have highlighted here.

@Asilvering pinging you for guidance on how to proceed. I would still like to give RowanJ LP a week (or more if they need) to find sources that are actually relevant to the scientific claims they appear alongside. However, these issues appear persistent, suggesting the potential need to mass-revert this editor's addition of unrelated papers to scientific articles. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 23:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@ViridianPenguin, I don't think we'd ever mass-revert like that for anything shy of ban evasion. If you think this article isn't up to GA standards because there are problems with the citations, you should fail it for not passing criteria #2. Further conversation about the issue in general should probably happen on RowanJ's talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 11:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

At that point I was new to nominating articles for GA status, I didn't know the requirement and went off based on how I personally thought the article looked. RowanJ LP (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)