Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi/Archive 6

Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10
This page is an Archive of the discussions from WikiProject Fungi talk page (Discussion page).
(January 20011 - December 20011) - Please Do not edit!

New categories

Hello dear collaborators. I think we can create useful new categories with plenty of subcategories. "(Ecto)mycorrhizal fungi" and "Saprotrophic fungi". Understandably, these will become overpopulated, so I suggest for ectomycorrhizal subcategories a division based on plant family, and more precisely, plant genus and even plant species. For example, Leccinum scabrum being mycorrhizal with birch will be ordered in category:Fungi/Ectomycorrhizal fungi/Ectomycorrhizal fungi with Angiosperms/Ectomycorrhizal fungi with Betulaceae/Ectomycorrhizal fungi with Betula. This can be expanded even further, but I suspect it's a tad complicated. So I'm also looking for ideas on how to simplify it even further. Here's a useful website. The advantage I see is for people who'd like to see a list of the different available fungi associated with a particular habitat or niche grouped in one place.--Paffka (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is an absolutely excellent idea. This information, variously called niche, ecological mode, trophic mode, nutritional mode or simply "lifestyle" is really important and not easy to find. That is both an urge to go forward and a warning, as many species simply do not have this information available anywhere in the literature. Discovering what these lifestyles are requires serious organismal biology; a discipline sorely lacking in all areas of biology besides medicine, including mycology.
A couple notes to help; the delightful complexity of biology is reflected in trying to apply these categories. Some categories seem to denote both ecological and nutritional mode, such as lichenized, mycorrhizal, or pathogenic - but species ascribed to all three of these categories may derive significant portions of their energy and nutrients saprotrophically. In many cases the category saprotroph is only given as a null category - so it only applies to saprotrophic fungi that don't also produce disease, or also carry out ectomycorrhizae. In other words, not being called a saprotroph doesn't mean you don't obtain nutrition saprotrophically.
Other categories, such as endophytic or endolichenic are easy to define, as simply isolating the fungus from a particular habitat automatically puts them in that category; this is useful, but oversimplifies the ecology of the fungus. On a related note, neither of the above mentioned categories can exist without two other categories existing: plant pathogenic and lichenicolous fungi. An endophyte is defined as a fungus occurring inside living plant cells "without causing any symptoms of disease." Technically, endomycorrhizae are endophytes; however they are rarely classified as such.
An example of an issue that might be run into: It seems someone using data from USDA-ARS has created a bunch of species pages for various plant pathogens (that often have no other information on them). Kudos to them for making the pages. Be aware, however, that many fungi growing saprotrophically on stored grains and vegetables are considered "plant pathogens" by the USDA, calling them post-harvest diseases. At no point are they in contact with a growing plant, and many ecologists would not call these pathogens, reserving that term for fungi that cause disease symptoms on living plants. Therefore contributors should be open-minded about fungi occupying more than one category. (see the Arnold 2009) paper below for more in this.
I've included three references that deal with this topic. These are three of the best (if not the three best) fungal systematics papers around right now. All three went to considerable trouble to categorize the lifestyle of many of the most well-known and important fungi. The papers will undoubtedly be a great resource and time saver for anyone attempting to add these categories to the Wikipedia articles. Between the three papers at least a few hundred fungal species have these categories applied to them. All three also make their categories in different and interesting ways.
These are three must-haves for anyone interested in fungal phylogenetics and systematics. The James paper is groundbreaking; the Schoch brilliantly ties together morphology and the old world of systematics with modern phylogenetics; the Arnold paper ties together fungal ecology, evolution and biology in new amazing ways; it is one of my all-time favorite papers. Note - All three of these papers have supplementary materials that are worth having too. Sorry this is a little skewed towards ascomycetes; it's just what's available.
One more quick note - as anyone who has a chance to read any of these articles will see, one of the great benefits of putting species into these categories is "ancestral state reconstruction" where inferred lifestyles are mapped onto the ancestral nodes, hinting at what ancient fungi might have been like! --DeliciousT (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

History...

Gah! I can't believe I was so sloppy not archiving! In a retrospective mood I have been looking over old collaborations I've been involved in, and realised the complete lack of archiving I did of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi/Fungi Collaboration (active Jan-July 2007), which I have now cobbled together at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi/Fungi collaboration/Past DCs. I figure maybe reactivating this is a way of prioritizing the bigger articles (???) Anyway, food for thought. There are a few more active fungi editors and it might be a good way of getting a few people who might see themselves as peripheral back in the fray. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's good that three of the ones listed are FAs now, but all of the other would be also be good to get to FA. I've been working on a massive overhaul of Truffle and related genera (there are lots, not just Tuber) and can hopefully pull off a mega-DYK in a couple of months. Sasata (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Need help with id

Hi,

I'm a new user and I would like this species of Fungi identified. It was photographed in the Western Ghats.

please help with Id

Ranggster (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You can try uploading it to Mushroom Observer instead, I don't think anyone here know's much about Indian fungi unfortunately. SmartSE (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I just saw the site - a great resource. prashanthns (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Widespread page layout problems

There seems to be something systematically wrong about the way the "mycomorphbox" template combines with the "Taxobox" template, at least in Internet Explorer. If you look at the articles Truffle (fungus), Matsutake and Chanterelle, for example, you will see big white blank spaces at the top of the page. These three articles were just chosen at random; if the sample I've looked at is representative then the problem affects a large number of articles relevant to this project. I have just attempted to fix one problem page, Shiitake, using tables (this edit). I notice a couple of other pages that seem to work because of other fixes: Agaricus bisporus (seems to utilise a template called "Fix bunching") and fly agaric (seems to work because it utilises an "Automatic taxobox" template).

Ideally someone should decide which is the preferred way to fix this problem and go through the affected articles applying the fix. 86.135.29.235 (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

All those pages look normal to me on Firefox. I noticed they don't have the {{FixBunching}} templates installed, I'll add that, then please report back to see if that fixes the problem on IE. Sasata (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I can see the problem 86.135.29.235 refers to using IE 7.06; adding {{FixBunching}} did indeed solve the problem. I concur that {{automatic taxobox}} seems to prevent the problem occurring, as when I replaced the automatic taxobox at Fly agaric with an ordinary {{taxobox}} from a different article and hit preview, the big white space appeared (visible with Internet Explorer). There seems to be efforts underway to systematically replace {{taxobox}} with {{automatic taxobox}} across Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Taxobot_3), so this problem might solve itself if we're patient. Alternatively, if someone can figure out how to edit {{taxobox}} or {{mycomorphbox}} to fix the problem, that would be much more elegant than adding {{FixBunching}} to all ~870 pages contatining {{mycomorphbox}} ([1]). Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 07:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Neofusicoccum mangiferae / Nattrassia mangiferae

I reviewed the article "Phylogenetic lineages in the Botryosphaeriaceae" by Crous, Slippers et al. 2006. Stud. Mycol. 55:235-253. Why is the Wikipedia listing of Neofusicoccum mangiferae not being used as the primary name for what is commonly still called Nattrassia mangiferae? Other related questions based on what I gleaned from the article:

1) Hendersonula toruloidea has a synanamorph that is Scytalidium-like, and it was proposed that it be moved to the genus Neoscytalidium (p244). It seems like it should not be listed as a synonym for Neofus. mangiferae or Nattr. mangiferae.

2) Neoscytalidium dimidiatum, Scytalidium dimidiatum, Scytalidium sp., and Torula dimidiata might not be current synonyms for Neofus. manigferae/Nattr. mangiferae. Per the article, "the ex-type strain of Scytalidium, S. lignicola Pesante, (CBS 233.57) clusters outside the Botryosphaeriaceae." Whereas Neofus. mangiferae is within Botryosphaeriaceae.

I'm not a plant pathologist nor a mycologist. Can someone clear up these questions for me? Thanks.

Angelaliula (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Angela Liu, Los Angeles

With close to 10,000 articles in the WikiProject, and only a handful of active editors (most of whom pay most attention to the more "glamorous" macrofungi), errors or out-of-date taxonomies abound. Please feel free to update any articles or correct errors yourself... we could use the help :) Sasata (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the first article accordingly to the correct name for the moment, based on this source. As Sasata mentioned, there are a lot of errors around, but you are more than welcome to fix them if you find them. If you're not sure how to, we'd be happy to help, and it doesn't matter if you aren't a plant pathologist or a mycologist, since we base our edits off sources, rather than personal knowledge. If you've got a paper that says something then you don't need to be an expert in the field to correct an error. SmartSE (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The automatic taxobox

Just to let people know that Template:Automatic taxobox is now stable and suitable for use in articles. The template should be able to replicate any existing taxobox, although its documentation is still incomplete; if you can't work out how to do something, the best option is to ask at Template talk:Automatic taxobox. The template may not be appropriate for every article; please use your discretion when upgrading, and preview the taxobox before saving. In particular, please check that there is consensus for the taxonomy in the new taxobox!

The template provides the following benefits:

  • Automatic generation of many parameters, meaning:
    • Less code in the Wiki source
    • Consistency between articles
  • Reduction of duplicate data
    • Taxonomies are generated by reference to a series of templates within Wikipedia, meaning that all articles using the Automatic Taxobox will use the same taxonomy - this only needs updating in one place
  • Automatic generation of subdivision lists
    • Again, a change in classification can be reflected across Wikipedia in a single edit
    • Full taxonomy browsing: child taxa aren't "missed off" lists, and can be easily found

I've made a start automating some minor phyla (such as the Chytridiomycota). There are rudimentary instructions detailing how to perform the upgrade. Let me (or others at Template talk:Automatic taxobox) know if you need any help! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

FLC

I've just added the project's first Featured List candidate, and would love to hear any opinions on what a properly-executed list of fungal species should look like! Sasata (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yesss, I've been waiting for this. J Milburn (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Questionable edit

Could someone take a look at this edit? Sourced content was removed without explanation and some of the information added (especially on the life cycle) seems too general for a species page. mgiganteus1 (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw the edit shortly after it had been added, but didn't want to revert lest I crush any wiki-dreams (the edit summary indicated the submission was a group effort from a class). The article needs a massive overhaul, and is somewhere on my to-do list to promote to GA or FA, but feel free to trim the fat as you see fit until then. Sasata (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

FixBunching template

It appears that some behind-the-scene code has been fixed that effectively renders the {{FixBunching}} template necessary... so don't be alarmed if you see it being removed from the taxon articles. Sasata (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

wrong inf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Porphyrellus_porphyrosporus#confusing_inf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BubikolRamios (talk • contribs) 15:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The article needs a rename (should be a Tylopilus, apparently), but for now I've mentioned "probably edible" with a ref. Sasata (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Fusarium subglutinans

I seem to have got myself into a bit of a mess. First I expanded the stub article Fusarium subglutinans. Then I found that the causative agent of Pine pitch canker was in fact classified as Fusarium circinatum so I reverted Fusarium subglutinans back to its original form and created the article Fusarium circinatum. On further investigation it seems that this is also wrong and that the organism concerned is actually Fusarium subglutinans f. sp. pini. What do you suggest I ought to do about it? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

According to this paper, pitch canker is cause by F. circinatum; what source do you have that says it's Fusarium subglutinans f. sp. pini? Sasata (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
This source [2] Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
According to this 1999 paper, Fusarium subglutinans f. sp pini is the same as F. circinatum. I don't see any references to the name f. sp pini in the literature past 2002, so presumably it's not being used anymore. Also check out these more recent articles (some of which are freely available):
  • PMID 18943249
  • this
  • this website
  • this powerpoint
  • PMID 15184151 Sasata (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
As you say, Fusarium circinatum seems now to be the accepted name. I will add a bit about taxonomy to the article and rewrite what I added to Fusarium subglutinans. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

  • {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Move/Redirect proposal for Oyster mushroom/Pleurotus ostreatus

I'd like to revive EpochFail's proposal to move the Oyster mushroom article to Pleurotus ostreatus, and then redirect Oyster mushroom to the genus-level article Pleurotus. See Talk:Oyster_mushroom to weigh in. --BlueCanoe (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. -- BlueCanoe (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Move Chanterelle to Cantharellus cibarius

I have proposed moving Chanterelle to Cantharellus cibarius. The current "chanterelle" article is about that single species, while many different species (in multiple genera) are referred to as "chanterelles" in the common sense. The Chanterelle article would then become a disambiguation similar to false morel or bolete. Please see Talk:Chanterelle#Disambiguation of "chanterelle" to add your opinion. Thanks. -- BlueCanoe (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation opinions

Hi. I'd be grateful if editors which an interest in disambiguation could take a look at Tristis and let me know their thoughts on its talk page. Thanks SP-KP (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Cryptomycota/Rozellida

I've modified (and moved) this to reduce the undue weight given to the recent Nature paper, but if any fungus expect would care to improve it further ...

Also, the Rozella taxobox could do to be redone, except that it gets stripped down to kingdom Fungi, clade Rozellida, genus Rozella. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Tephrocybe palustris

New to editing wikipedia. Added Tephrocybe palustris, and would love to get some feedback to make sure I'm doing things right before I continue on. BarnaclePete (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


Australian Fungi

The Fungi of Australia article doesn't really list many native species at all. I know this is because not much is known about them, but there are more species known than what's written there.

So I was wondering if it would be a good idea to create a list of species, going by field guides. Of course this list would be very incomplete, but it might be good as a short sample to give a rough outline of some of the common species, in a bit more detail than Fungi of Australia. What do you think, should I bother?

Alternatively, I could just expand the Native fungi section in Fungi of Australia. — JamesDouch • Talk 02:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

A list article along the lines of List of fungi of Australia (or perhaps "macrofungi" or "mushrooms" to narrow down the list somewhat) might be worthwhile. Be careful though, even with the understudied mycoflora down under, something like this can become unwieldy. I have on my hard drive a similar article I started some time ago (List of fungi of Hawaii) and its already become a huge monster that may never see the light of day... Sasata (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
If it becomes stupidly long, it could be split- List of fungi of Hawaii (A-M) and List of fungi of Hawaii (N-Z) or something similar. J Milburn (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
James the list would still be several hundred species if not a few thousand - many are temporary names because the look and key out like northern hemisphere species, some of these are known to be different ecologically, some note. Many are undescribed but sort of known etc. I must say I have my misgivings. My worry is that it gives the impression the fungal flora are known better than they are (which is pretty poorly). Hate to be a wet blanket. Some genera are known well in Oz - Amanita, Entoloma, and various hygrophoraceae to name the most notable. The boletes were fairly well studied in Queensland but not elsewhere....if you are looking for tasks I can think of some better ones. Expanding the native section in Fungi of Australia is a great idea. I always meant to return to that sometime. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, sounds fair enough. I think I'll just expand the native fungi section... when I get around to it. Regards, — JamesDouch • Talk 11:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Urediniomycetes?

I've noticed that the Urediniomycetes page is still around, with no reference on it to the fact that this name is out of date. Pucciniomycotina/Pucciniomycetes pages exist, and these are properly linked to from Basidiomycota. It seems to me that to avoid redundancy either Urediniomycetes should redirect to Pucciniomycotina or it should be a stub explaining that it's an old name with a link. Kind of a shame, since I personally prefer uredinio- over puccinio-, but you've got to go with what's proper. --DeliciousT (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I've updated several pages to reflect the updated classification, and made Urediniomycetes redirect to Pucciniomycetes. There are, however, many old links that should be updated, and these higher level taxon pages could use some love so they are more useful. Got rust, anyone? Sasata (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
That's excellent! In general I've found the higher-level fungal systematics in Wikipedia to be comprehensive and up to date. I'll plan on adding some pucciniomycete yeast genera and species at some point - some species are absolutely fascinating. I'm very new to anything behind the scenes at Wikipedia; I'd like to do more, but my time is very limited by currently being employed as a fungal taxonomist, a "taxing" job. As awesome (and truly useful) as Wikipedia is, I'm sure my major professor would feel that my time would be more wisely spent actually conducting the research. I don't fully agree, but in the mean time I'd like to remain relatively anonymous and not make any commitments. However I certainly will watch this talk page and continue to give opinions when I think they may be helpful.--DeliciousT (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


Two new articles in need of attention

Ahmed Abdel Azeem and Fungi of Egypt and North Africa. mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Even more than these, this stub I saved - Conservation of fungi needs to be developed. Truly conservation of fungi is neglected, there wasn't even an article on Wikipedia on the subject till now :(. AshLin (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
And here's one that's getting quite a bit of attention at the moment: Fomitiporia ellipsoidea. mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
There's a great DYK in there. I'll give it a quick clean, but some love would be great- maybe tomorrow! J Milburn (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Auricularia auricula-judae/archive1

I've nominated Auricularia auricula-judae for peer review; please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Auricularia auricula-judae/archive1. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Mycomorphbox appearance

Hello. User:Natr is trying to improve the appearance of the mycomorphbox in a variety of ways - larger, contrastier icons, etc. As the main creator of the template, I'm not impartial when it comes to the appearance of it, so I'd suggest you take a look at the changes there and weigh in. de Bivort 01:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes these are worth a look and comments. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to assist in adding donated content: GLAM/ARKive

Hi,

I am the Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador to ARKive, who have kindly agreed to donate an initial 200 article texts about endangered species from their project, to Wikipedia, under a CC-BY-SA license. Details are on the GLAM/ARKive project page. The donated texts include several about fungi. Your help, to merge the donated texts into articles, would be appreciated. Guidelines for doing so are also on the above page. Once articles have been expanded using the donated texts, we are also seeking assistance in having those articles translated into other languages. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, on the project's talk page, or my own. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Archaeorhizomyces

I have rescued this one-liner from the speedy-deletion heap and done a minimum job of stubbing it, but there is clearly scope for expansion by someone better-qualified. The Science Daily article cited refers to an article in Science. JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look into it. I've found the article cited. J Milburn (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fomitiporia ellipsoidea/archive1

I've nominated Fomitiporia ellipsoidea for featured article status. Comments would be appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

ID?

Can anyone identify this fungus? It's growing in mushroom-like clumps under my friend's deck. It's translucent; the light is from a flashlight. UtherSRG (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It's actually a plant: Monotropa uniflora de Bivort 17:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I thought so too, but my friend insisted it was a fungus. This'll teach her. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking for Online Ambassadors with an interest in mycology

Hi WikiProject Fungi members! I wanted to let you know that the Wikipedia Ambassador Program is working with a university class on mycology, and it'd be great to have some people who know their way around Wikipedia's mycology articles to support the class as Online Ambassadors. If you're interested, let me know.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of psilocybin mushrooms‎‎

Thinking of revising the format of this highly-viewed article and giving it a major overhaul. Would appreciate some other opinions on what the table should look like before I devote too many hours working on it... thanks! Sasata (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Mycobank for classification reference

As I've been enjoying all of the fungal Wikipedia pages, I've noticed that the 2007 Outline of Ascomycota is often referenced for ascomycete classification & taxonomy. I don't know what the policy is here, but may I suggest using Mycobank as a preferred fungal classification reference. I think most would agree that it is the most comprehensive, up-to-date, and scrutinized database, and a better reference than anything in print. The new changes in the ICN will require new species to be registered with Mycobank, thus contributing to its utility as a reference. Just my two cents. DeliciousT (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with using MycoBank as the standard taxonomical reference. I originally created the Ascomycota taxon pages using the Outline of Ascomycota because it was the most up-to-date source that I could find that conveniently listed the 6000+ genera, making it relatively easy for me to stub them out. As time passes and I revisit the pages, I usually add a link to Index Fungorum and MycoBank. It's a looong-term project. Sasata (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Very interesting - I see how using the Outline could have sped things up. It's an impressive effort. Though Mycobank & Index Fungorum remain more comprehensive, Wikipedia Fungi is already a far more useful database. The superior format & knowledge of Wikipedia means faster & better browsing. Plus, the other websites don't contain links to what a perithecium is or to the pages of plant of animal hosts. Keep up the good work! DeliciousT (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Journal article about covering fungi on Wikipedia

An article about Wikipedia in the journal of the "International Society for Fungal Conservation":

"Raising the profile of fungi on the Internet: editing Wikipedia" Fungal Conservation issue 1 (PDF, 5MB), Summer 2011, p.54-60.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Nice to see the WikiProject mentioned indirectly-

It is worth pointing out that all of this activity described in these paragraphs is directed at rather general pages, like the main pages for individual countries. These often have a section entitled “Flora and fauna” or “Biodiversity”, but have rarely had the attention of a mycologist. In addition to general papers, there are already many specialist pages for the fungi and, having been written by mycologists, these tend to be of very high quality indeed. By all means, add to those pages as well as raising the profile of fungi on the general pages.

The article raises an important point about how a number of top-level articles neglect fungi, and the fact that it addresses good editing practises (not engaging in edit warring, adhering to a neutral point of view) is promising. I'll drop this link on the Signpost tip-line; I suspect that this is something Wikipedians would like to see. J Milburn (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Psilocybin

I've opened a peer review for this article here, and would welcome any comments you might have to make the eventual FAC smoother. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Friedrich Heinrich Wiggers

Friedrich Heinrich Wiggers has been tagged due to concerns about the subject's notability. Since he is chiefly a mycologist, judging by the incoming links, perhaps someone here can add a statement or two about his importance. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy vs Classification vs Systematics vs.....

Debate on taxonomy sections listed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life#Taxonomy_vs_Classification_vs_Systematics_vs..... It follows on from discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#General_structure_for_plant_articles_and_lists cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)