Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

This page is an Archive of the discussions from WikiProject Fungi talk page (Discussion page). (January 2014 - December 2014) - Please Do not edit!

New article advice

Hi everyobdy! I've never written an article on a fungal taxon before (apart from some minor additions to Aspergillus parasiticus) but recently expanded Lepiota cristata from it's former one line stub self into what I think is a relatively decent article. I'd be grateful if more experienced WP:FUNGI editors could have a quick look at it and make any changes/give feedback as they see fit. Thanks, Acather96 (click here to contact me) 16:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm currently working on an expansion/rewrite, should be ready in a day or two. Sasata (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Boletopsis nothofagi and a request

The article was a mess. Clear machine-translation from the German article to English, with some very awkward phrasings left behind, such as translating inland (as in, not coastal) as "Germany"; hat instead of cap throughout most of the article, clamp connection as buckle, Nothofagus/southern beech/false beech as notebook, etc. I've been on and off correcting the article through the past few months. My estimate is that I am currently about 80% done with about 300 words left to check. I expect that I will be done later today or tomorrow.
However, German is somewhere along my third or fourth language and mycology is, although a subject of interest, not a subject of expertise to me, so I would really appreciate it if someone from this WikiProject could take a look. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done – Article is now a GA. Sasata (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Stereum ostrea

Feedback welcome. Also pinging @Sainsf:, the article's author. J Milburn (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Heavy metal tolerance in ectomycorrhizal fungi

Dear fungi experts: Here's a new Afc submission for your attention. Any opinions? —Anne Delong (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not think this topic deserves a separate article. Most of what is written there is already covered in the article ectomycorrhiza, and the other info is either background filler or could be transferred over. Sasata (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think there could be a valuable separate article about heavy metals in EM fungi... but it would require a complete rewrite from the AfC draft, which I don't have time to do, and also think is pretty far down the priorities list as far as missing fungi articles go. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it seems that although the topic could be notable, this particular article can be let go. Thanks for taking the time to check this out. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Margit Babos. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've cleaned this up a bit (and the referencing could use some more work), but it's essentially a good submission. Sasata (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

A mess of image renames

I've just noticed that a large number of images by James Lindsey have had their ids disputed, and have been renamed, but the images will still be (mis)illustrating many wikipedia articles. See re-identifications by Toffel [1]. I note an earlier discussion above about mis-id'ed images, but on a smaller scale. Probably would have been best to just automatically delete all the renamed images from articles. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert Joseph Bandoni

Dear editors: Here's a new submission at Afc that may be of interest to this project. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It's in mainspace now. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Mycovellosiella fulva page should be changed to Passalora fulva

The fungus most famously known as Cladosporium fulvum but correctly known as Passalora fulva is listed as Mycovellosiella fulva here on wikipedia. The pages for the two other names redirect to M. fulva. The two authoritative websites on fungal taxonomy, Mycobank and IndexFungorum both list Passalora fulva as the correct name. I would change this myself but I don't have the wikipedia know-how (just the fungal systematic know-how).DeliciousT (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@DeliciousT: sorry re delay - all fixed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for article reviewers

Questions have been raised about the accuracy of science articles written by the prolific author Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs). The background can be read in a regrettably long and bad-tempered thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive835#Harassment. If you do not want to read the whole thing, start here. To her credit, Cwmhiraeth has initiated Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth. It would help to generate light, rather than more heat, and to decide whether there is a serious problem, if scientifically-qualified editors uninvolved in the row could review some of Cwmhiraeth's articles and comment at the editor review. JohnCD (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Links to archived thread updated. JohnCD (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tritirachiomycetes

Dear Fungi experts: This old draft was never submitted at Afc to be included in the encyclopedia. Is this a notable topic that should be saved and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: yes it should be moved into mainspace. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's done. Someone more knowledgeable about this topic than I am will need to add categories. Thanks for taking time to check it out. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Naming monotypic taxa

Is there a specific naming convention for fungi? I'm specifically wondering about monotypic taxa. WP:FAUNA and WP:FLORA both say monotypic genera should be described at the genus title. That seems to be the general practice as well, but Kalapuya brunnea (a GA) is titled by species. Perhaps that's WP:NATURAL disambiguation since the genus name isn't WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term. Or should that be moved to Kalapuya (fungus) (I believe you don't usually use (genus) as a disambiguator)? --BDD (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree it would normally be at genus, seems a bit ungainly to stick the bracketed bit in when we can simply use the species name as an identifier. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, WP:FLORA now suggests using the binomial for natural disambiguation when the name of a monotypic genus is ambiguous. (I added the relevant text, but it hasn't been controversial, and I did find some previous discussion suggesting this would be good practice). Plantdrew (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Both the flora and fauna naming guidelines now support using the binomial as the title to disambiguate monotypic genera when disambiguation is needed (with monotypic genera otherwise being at the genus title, and using a parenthetical disambiguation term for ambiguous genera that aren't monotypic). I've added a note about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Article titles. If there are no objections, I'd like to start moving applicable fungus articles to the binomial. Plantdrew (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Auricularia auricula-judae: nutritionalvalue

I left a note at WT:FOOD#Auricularia auricula-judae: nutritionalvalue saying that a recent edit needs to be fixed. A cosmetic issue has been addressed, but it would be helpful if someone with an understanding of the issues were to review the matter. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gyalecta ulmi

Dear fungi experts: This draft was never submitted for inclusion in the encyclopedia, and now it is abandoned and will soon be deleted unless someone takes an interest in it. Is this a notable species, and should the article be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Although some of the material duplicates what is already in the genus article Gyalecta, there are a few useful bits that could be used to start up a stub on the species. I'll work on it over the weekend. Sasata (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Great! Let me know when you think it's ready for acceptance, or just move it yourself if you want to. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Drugs synthesised by Fungi

Currently there appear to be two articles (maybe more ?) dealing with drugs synthesised by fungi, Medicinal molds and Medicinal mushroom (Medicinal mushrooms which might be a more logical name is actually a redirect).

There seems to be a great deal of both articles contributed by a single editor whose principal interest appears to be bio-chemistry rather than mycology. There is also significant overlap between the two and a great lack of distinction between the mycological issues. Mycelia are mentioned in Medicinal molds as if they are exclusive to molds (whatever they may be). I suspect that this is an attempt to separate those fungi growing on agar in a laboratory from those growing wild and producing recognisable fruiting bodies (i.e mostly Badisiomycetes and Ascomycetes). I think this requires a radical make-over by combining the whole lot into a single article called Drugs synthesised by Fungi or something equally catchy. Before doing so however, I would welcome other views from experienced mycologists. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

In the same vein we also have an articled called Mold which seems to mix common-place understandings of what a mould is with specific fungal genera and species. I believe that the article should describe the generality of what we term moulds with links off to the appropriate Order, Genus or species article . At present it is just a whole mishmash of unrelated material spanning all the main fungal phyla simply on the basis that a superficial visible appearance of hyphae are present.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Platismatia wheeleri

Can somebody here review the taxobox and article for Platismatia wheeleri? I think that the initial information was incorrect, maybe copy/paste from another article? I have tried to fix it, but an not a mycologist. Thanks --—Gaff ^ταλκ 20:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for review of lichen genus article style and format

I am starting to fill out the articles on lichen genera, from A-Z, then on species within the genera. The plant template does not quite fit when it comes to lichens. Also, I am finding variations from article to article on the format for lichen genera aricles, e.g., on lists of species being partial "selected" lists in the article body, being collapsed lists in the article body, being collapsed lists entirely contained in the taxobox and not the article body, and being their own articled that is linked from the genus article. I just did some work on Acarospora. I would appreciate it if someone could review it and make suggestions or comments for improvements, then I will use the resulting formatting and style for other lichen genus articles. (I already know one improvement is to use more sources, which I will do, especially dispositive sources on the genus. FloraWilde (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi FloraWilde, I'm very pleased to see you working on these lichen genera! Some suggestions: if there are more than about 40 species in the genus I think it's a good idea to break the species list off to a separate article; see List of Lecanora species or List of Pertusaria species for a quick and dirty formatting, and List of Armillaria species for a possible template of an "ideal" fungal species list. Collapsed lists should be avoided. FYI, relatively up-to-date species list can be acquired in an easy copy/paste format from Catalog of Life–they have their taxon data frequently updated from Index Fungorum. The article Cyathus might serve as a sort of "fungal genus" template, although lichens may have a different layout that might be more ideal. I suggest it might be a good idea to collaborate and bring one of these genus articles up to GA-class, to help develop a template for future lichen genus articles. Sasata (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC: porcino vs porcini in Boletus edulis article

Discussion here regarding use of "porcini", the plural of "porcino", as a singular term: Talk:Boletus_edulis#RfC:_porcino_vs_porcini. Eric ^talk 15:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Saccharomyces kluyveri

Help required from an informed party at Talk:Saccharomyces kluyveri#Requested move. TIA. Andrewa (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to those who came to my aid! The article has now been moved and needs updating to reflect this... probably better done by you knowledgable folk, but I'll have a go at it if it doesn't happen within a few days. Andrewa (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article discussion for Fungus article

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

Automatic taxoboxes

Why is the consensus here that regular taxoboxes are better? Dgrootmyers (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hadn't thought about it too much. Do the auto ones work? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

They do if the templates for them are created, which is pretty simple. It's easier to use regular taxoboxes, but automatic taxoboxes are more convenient IMHO since the taxoboxes for taxa within a clade change when the taxobox for this clade is changed, which, once the system is in place, saves people having to edit every single species' taxobox if a genus is moved to a new family or something like that. However, this system is only efficient if automatic taxoboxes don't get reverted, which is why I'm asking. Dgrootmyers (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The autotaxobox system works very poorly for monotypic taxa, of which there are many (thousands) in the fungus kingdom. There are problems with its implementation with taxonomically unstable taxa, which, in the current hyperactive state of DNA-based phylogenetic revision, describes many of the upper-level taxa. Use of the autotaxobox system makes work easier for veterans who know what they're doing, but is confusing to less knowledgeable editors, as the code for the template is on a different page. I'd rather wait and see these and other problems ironed out before we switch over 1000s of articles to a completely new system. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Dgrootmyers - the higher level taxonomy is pretty fluid presently and I tend to agree with Sasata. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't checked whether this is still relevant, but back in Jan 2011 there was a compatibility issue between {{mycomorphbox}} and {{taxobox}}, which was fixed by switching to {{automatic taxobox}}. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi/Archive 6#Widespread page layout problems. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)