Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

This page is an Archive of the discussions from WikiProject Fungi talk page (Discussion page). (January 2009 - December 2009) - Please Do not edit!

Fungal drugs

Hi, was wondering if fungal-related drugs and chemicals are covered within the scope of WikiProject Fungi. I'm thinking about articles like lentinan,muscimol, usnic acid, ibotenic acid, LSD, ganoderic acid, and many more of that nature. Many of these articles also fall under the domain of other projects like WP:CHEMS or WP:PHARM, so it might be possible to get some cross-project collaboration in the future. Comments?Sasata (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Heck, why not. What articles are covered by which wikiproject are just guidelines anyway. Tagging means possible flagging to folks trhat are interested, so tag away :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review (sort of) for Amanita muscaria

Doing my head in this article, I want to get it to GA and then FAC once and for all - feel free to drop in with some comments/help etc.Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention

It has been suggested that Wikipedia change its naming convention for all articles on biological organisms to use scientific names. This is being discussedhere at WP:NC. It may be in your interest to take part. --Jwinius (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Fungi

I've spent today creating the above portal. It has sections for selected articles (any good or featured article), selected picture (any featured picture here or on Wikimedia Commons, as well as other nominations- see the page for details), did you know (for did you know items that would go on the main page, so they can hang around a little longer), selected species (any decent article on a specific species) and various links and "you can help" type content. It was based on various other portals of high quality and/or similar subject matter. I'm now interested in attracting readers, as it were- would anyone be opposed to adding a link to this in articles, using this template? Also, this is by no means complete- I've added all our good/featured articles, and most eligible images (I think) but there are still a lot of potential "selected species" out there, and new ones of all three (plus DYKs) will be springing up all the time. Also, I'm sure it could be improved in other ways.

Basically- comments? J Milburn (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks great! I think it should help attract more people to the Fungi project. A couple dozen more GA and FA articles to choose from would be nice :)Sasata (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks terrific. Well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I intend to nominate it for featured portal status, so I have submitted it for a peer review here. Hopefully some portal regulars can offer some advice. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Portal linking

Different projects handle portal linking in different ways- personally, I think linking to the portal from all articles about fungi with a "see also" section would be best, but I would say that, being the creator. Would anyone have an objection to doing that, which is the approach favoured by, for example, theCetaceans portal and especially theScouting portal? Such linking would be done using the template on the right. Does anyone have any thoughts on how to handle the linking? J Milburn (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to linking to the portal in every fungal article, but am not sure if a separate section heading is needed. Wouldn't just having the portal link at the bottom be as effective? Anyways, it would be easy to rent a bot to add the link to all articles in WPFungi and get it all done in one fell swoop. In another related matter, I have a photo up at WP:FPC, and intend to submit more from my collection as time permits, so hopefully we'll have more fungal eye candy for the portal. Sasata (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree it would be great to get a bot to do it for us, I could perhaps try and get my bot on the case, to save the more talented bot operators some time. I'm not too sure about just sticking it at the bottom, but that could work- I reckon it's probably best if it is placed at the top of a section. See also, external links or references would be good. Alternatively, it could be tagged onto the bottom of the infobox to get all of the species articles in one edit? I'm sure I've seen something similar done before... That's great news about the FPC, I'll go and take a look now (also, I placed our current FPs on the project page earlier- seems a shame not to honour them here!). J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me (link on all fungi pages that is,...and listing FPs here too). Casliber (talk ·contribs) 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've created {{Fungiportal}} to place in fungi articles with "see also" sections. I'm going to run through the articles on AWB to get it into as many as I can to start with. Otherwise, feel free to add "see also" sections (links to lists the article appears on is usually a good link) and then adding the template. If you want to add the template to other articles without a see also section, be my guest. J Milburn (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi/fungus articles by size

Here is something I got betacommand to set up way back when (not updated since March 2008) - it was modelled on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/dinosaur articles by size. Given betacommand's current status, I was musing on asking another bot whiz whether it was worth updating. Do people think this is useful at all? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Strike bits above. Some very much appreciated person is running the bot again :)))) Casliber (talk ·contribs) 23:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny

Any bets on whether the article Cyathus gayanus Tul. (1844) would survive speedy deletion? :) I might have to try for the humor factor. A double-DYK hook with that and Phallus impudicus on April fool's day would be just about the funniest thing I ever seen here :) Sasata (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Tricholoma pardinum

I realised I never nommed this to WP:GAN - anyone see anything else it needs before going there? Casliber (talk· contribs) 23:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made a few fixes- wikilinking, rewording, reformatting the references and sorting out the bunched up edit links. There's something morbidly funny about the line "seven people and a cat suffered severe symptoms"... Looks great now, should be ready to go. GAC is a little slow at the moment, but hopefully someone (perhaps another project member?) will review it shortly. J Milburn (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to review at GAN if no-one else gets there first. Sasata (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have nommed it. I will try and review some others to get some karma points :) Casliber (talk ·contribs) 06:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Fungus improvement

I thought I'd take advantage of the increasing momentum of WikiProject Fungi and invite all fungus lovers that would like to see this top-importance article become featured to add comments on the talk page. Sasata (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Amanita muscaria is at FAC

Amanita muscaria is at FAC. So help with corrections and last minute improvements, and honest opinions all welcome :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Clitocybe clavipes or...

Ampulloclitocybe clavipes? See here. I made a stub as I thought it would make an interesting little page as it has been reported as having antabuse-like properties and I thought it was the tye species of clitocybe - this last is interesting (I guess) as to how taxonomists classify and change things sometimes for utility (e.g. designating a new Type etc.) Anyway, this change is well-accepted yes? Anyone who knows may Move to the proper scientific name. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Tough call. When I wrote about the mushroom, I called it Ampulloclitocybe, based on the Redhead paper (available from the Cyberliber site, BTW) and the implicit approval of Kuo. However, I can't find any examples of authors calling it this new name in post-2002 papers, so who knows? Probably no-one better to answer this question than the author himself! Sasata (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

ROFL - fantastic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Genus with only one species

Hi,

I've been doing a bit of work on Chorioactis geaster. I notice there's no page for the genus. From what I can tell, this genus only contains the one species. Is it worth creating the page for the genus or would a redirect to the species page with some suitable explanation in the text be better? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

For these cases I've been redirecting the species to the genus name, bolding both genus and species in the taxobox, and stating explicitly in the lead that the genus is monotypic. I vaguely recall reading somewhere else that this was the correct way to go about it, but anyone else please chime in if they know better. Sasata (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Source of Images for Plant Pathogenic Fungi?

Since I seem to be in to bugging everyone this evening, I have another question. A lot of the fungi which are plant pathogens are lacking images. Is it possible to use some of the images from this website http://www.ipmimages.org/browse/detail.cfm?imgnum=1504091 ? They've got a Creative Commons tag. If so, how do I go about doing it? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can use those images if they're from the USDA. Get a WikiCommons account if you don't have one already. When uploading a file (which you'll have to have already downloaded on your computer), select "It is from a US federal government source" when prompted where the work is from. Fill in all the details, and make sure to put {{PD-USGov}} in the slot for "permission". Don't forget the category (but you're pretty good at that already!). Let me know if you need further clarification. Sasata (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Forestry images is also a really good source, but make sure you only use the images released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License and not the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License. It's okay to edit the images to get rid of the numbers in the corner as well. Million_Moments (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. I've uploaded a couple of images (only the ones tagged with Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License) to Commons and then added them to a couple of articles here (eg. Ophiostoma wageneri). I've been putting the credits under the picture, which I think is the correct thing to do given the license? Looks a bit ugly but I'd rather cite than not. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No, unless the author of the image is in some way significant (obviously, it would be worth crediting a famous artist or photographer) we do not credit within articles. The image page provides all the legal requirements for crediting. J Milburn (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll pop back and change the captions accordingly. Thanks.  : ) Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 10:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if you register with one of these websites, you can get the images at very high resolution. You can also under the terms of the liscence edit them to remove the black box with the numbers in the corner. Million_Moments (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Time to archive?

Now 110 kb long... Sasata (talk)

Yeah. good idea. I am busy for several hours, but if you want to do it, have a look and maybe leave a few things unarchived which look pertinent to the present (ie. defacto 'stickies') Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dried mushrooms

Hi, could some people possibly weigh in here to help identify the species? If it can be positively identified, I think we have a new FP- if not, we don't. J Milburn (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)\

Wish I could help, but I have no clue. Sasata (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:10, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Gyromitra esculenta is on mainpage

Yippee! OK now to watch for edits...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Cyathus at FAC

I've submitted Cyathus for approval at FAC and hope some of you will drop by and offer your opinions. Thanks! Sasata (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fungi descriptions: establishing consensus, redux

Some of you may remember that a few months ago I brought up the subject of establishing a consensus for writing descriptions of mushroom species; see here. Only Casliber and I had anything to say about it at the time. I recently changed the description format for Psilocybe naematoliformis, and couple of editors have expressed they do not like the prose format for descriptions of fungi (see the talk page). Since the Fungi project is more active now, perhaps it is time to revisit this issue? On a related note, it might be a worthwhile idea to create a Fungi:MOS to help standardize the format for species, genus and family articles. I'd like to get a consensus on this issue, as I have hundred of articles in the planning stage. Sasata (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I can understand the desire for the simple (IE, non-prose) descriptions, but I feel they are more suited to lists. (Perhaps if descriptions were to slip into the species lists in a big way, especially if trying to differentiate between related species- see candy cap [I'm not sure about those sort of articles myself, but that's a discussion for another day]). I do not feel that a complete article on a fungal species could list features in that way, and I feel it looks rather unprofessional. Yes, mushroom field guides may list like that, but we aren't a field guide- we're an encyclopedia. Finally, if we were to list in that manner (unless we were to modify the mycomorphbox template to have more information- that's a possibility) we would have articles looking completely different from anything else on Wikipedia, and I don't think that kind of inconsistency is a good thing. We should always look to interpret pre-existing styles to fit our needs (listing in our MOS a new infobox, new "typical sections", favoured style of pictures and so on) rather than effectively rewrite the rules. J Milburn (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I much prefer prose for description sections, and this is pretty well ubiquitous across wikipedia for all bio articles. Much of the material in a description section notes vagaries and qualifiers which are unsuited to point format. The overall layout I adopted was from various other bio articles used in birds and elsewhere. I was figuring this discussion was more about prose vs. point format for description sections - I will startr a new thread on layout below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to throw my weight to the cause of preventing articles in the project becoming field guide-like in structure, appearance and style of writing. There should be emphasis on displaying the most important info on the given topic and only after that should there be facts such as spore size and hymenium attachment. Facts that could mask the info a casual reader would be looking for. If there is a structured monotonous format (as displayed in some foreign language wikipedias, in the clear fieldbook kind of presentation), everything becomes of equal status and importance within the article. Also, I'm all for abolishing the mycomorphbox and especially the edibility part. A fungus's edibility is not for wikipedia to decide upon and is definitely not a mycological characteristic. --Paffka (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of the mycomorphoboxes in their current state either; in many cases it's artificial to have to fit the mushroom into a specific category, especially when that mushroom can exhibit a range of characteristics. It's also naive to assume that edibility can be summarized in one word with many mushrooms. I disagree with the importance of gill attachment, however, as this is an important characteristic that can be used by anyone in the field to help with identification. Spore size and other microscopic details are really useful to only those with a microscope, and are probably best placed in a subsection of the description. All this argues for the potential usefulness of a standard format for mushroom species pages. Sasata (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Edibility categories

I have nominated some of the edibility categories for a rename, for consistency and clarification, and so that non-mushrooms can be included, which would certainly be useful. Please direct any comments you have to the CfD discussion here J Milburn (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Galerina GAR

Galerina has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

It'd be nice if we could all chip in to try to help this. I will be when I get a second. J Milburn (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Sasata (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Species by year of formal description

Hi, folks. I recently opened a discussion at WT:TOL that needs your input regarding the categorization of species by year of description. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Category:Species by year of formal description for more info. Thanks! --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Policy on unpublished names

Hi - what are the feelings of the group on Wiki pages on unpublished taxa (as in unofficially published under the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature)? Currently there is a page on Psathyrella aquatica that refers to an exciting find, but the name is not validly published (as of yet). The citations only refer to publicity, not actual documentation. Heliocybe (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because a species doesn't (yet) have a valid name doesn't seem a good reason not to have an article on it. Surely the thing to do would be to make sure that it's made clear in the article that the name hasn't yet been validly published. --Graminophile (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above. I wanted to expand that page, but couldn't find anything in the literature. Will add a note about it being not yet validly published. Sasata (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

19 IDs from Wielangta Forest, Tasmania

I've taken a whole bunch of fungi images on a bushwalk today, which should be useful in a large number of articles. I really need some help identifying them however.

• 
  1 - Armillaria
• 
  2
• 
  3 - Mycena sp.
• 
  4 - Lactarius sp
• 
  5 - Phylloporus sp.
• 6 - Rigidoporus laetus
  6 - Rigidoporus laetus
• 
  7 - Cyptotrama asprata
• 
  8 - Oudemansiella australis
• 
  9 - Xerula australis
• 
  10 Clavulina or Ramaria
• 
  11 - Agaricus
• 
  12 Boletus
• 
  13 Looks like a parasol mushroom? Macrolepiota clelandii Ah well, I got the right genus!
• 
  14 Mycena ?
• 
  15 Trametes versicolor
• 
  16
• 
  17 - Cruentomycena viscidocruenta
• 
  18 Cortinarius ?
• 
  19
• 
  20 - In Austins Ferry, Not Wielangta - Coprinus comatus
• 
  20 - Coprinus comatus
• 
  21
• 
  22 - Boletellus obscureococcineus ( old) or possibly Heimiella
• 
  23 - Boletellus obscureococcineus (confirmed at mushroom observer)
• 
  24

Thank you in advance. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Noodle, some nice pics there! I highly recommend you upload these to Mushroom Observer, where there are dozens of highly experienced mycophiles ready to offer opinions about identification. I added a few guesses, but ID is not my strong point, so I don't want to embarrass myself too much. For most of them, id down to species level is possible only with additional info like spore print, gill attachment, and in some cases, microscopic features. In any case, if you can get some id's from MO and report back, I'd be happy to start articles for the genera/species if they're missing on WP. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

These are absolutely wonderful images- many of them are worthy of featured status (I suspect you know that already...). Hopefully Casliber will be able to help out- Tasmania is more his neck of the woods! I've added one guess, but I'm really not the person you should be asking. J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I will have a look soon - bit tied up right now - would be great to get some Tassie articles on the main page - hopefully Styx Valley and Tarkine.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added them to the mushroom site. I'd assume adding them is enough to get them identified? 21-24 are from near Snug Falls, Snug, Tasmania. Is the id for 22 and 23 correct? Its surprising since they look almost completely different. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure, the rhubarb bolete stains blue when cut or bruised. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(out) I've started some articles on the new (to Wikipedia) species and will try to work them up for DYK's, depending on how much info I can find. Sasata (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bit busy but I will add what I can. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: I have a hunch that the green mushroom in 19 is a species of Entoloma Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

IDs from Marriot Falls, Mt Field National Park

• 
  Amanita muscaria
• 
  Amanita muscaria Buttons
• 
  2 - Cortinarius archeri
• 
  3 - Cortinarius archeri
• 
  4
• 
  5 - Galerina
• 
  6 - Armillaria hinnulea
• 7 - Armillaria
  7 - Armillaria
• 
  8 - Armillaria
• 
  9 - Mycena
• 
  10 - Armillaria
• 
  11 - Mycena
• 
  12 - Amanita muscaria?
• 
  13 - Amanita muscaria?
• 
  14
• 
  15 - Boletus
• 
  16 - Mycena
• 
  17 - Armillaria
• 
  18 - Armillaria
• 
  19 - Armillaria
• 20 - Amanita muscaria?
  20 - Amanita muscaria?

Went for a walk to Marriott Falls today. Its located in the Mount Field national park. There was a small pine plantation right at the start of the walk, where I found what look like Amanita muscaria to me. 12, 13, 14 and 20 were also in amongst the pines, I think 20 is probably Amanita muscaria, but 12 and 13 were more orange in colour and may not be. The rest were found in cool temperate rainforest. I'll post them to the mushroom observer tomorrow or so. Noodle snacks (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just passing by... I have to say that your fungi photos are really fabulous. I hope you can use many of them here at Wikipedia. 86.161.43.69 (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC).
  • Rain will often wash spots off Amanita muscaria, and the floppy ring looks alot like A. muscaria's. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The location has about 2000mm of rainfall a year, and it was raining whilst I was there, so I'd say that its rather likely. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Assuming your happy with those three images in the article, I may try and nominate the three as a set. I figure the three images show it at different stages of development, and the third image also illustrates the rainfall issue to some degree. 12 or 13 might be slightly better for the rainfall thing, but 13 in particular is damaged and 12 isn't really representative of a typical button. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Article request

Could someone create an article on Histoplasma duboisii? I just created a redlink at African histoplasmosis. kilbad (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sasata (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. kilbad (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Fungus at peer review

... pushing towards FAC... any comments highly welcome! Sasata (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Further reading suggestions

This ECAM article has enough information to seed a section on medicinal effects of mushrooms, but I don't have time to rewrite to avoid copyright violation. http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/2/3/285 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turpin (talk • contribs) 03:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. The Fungus article already has a "Medicinal use" section, but I've now inserted the suggested reference as a source in there. Sasata (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Our syns will find us out.

Is there a case for keeping the number of binomial synonyms in articles on species to just 2 or 3 in the Taxobox. Maybe just the most recent, chronologically. While taxonomic history is very interesting, i feel that the place for this info is within the article itself..preferably under the 'Taxonomy' heading. I don't see the need for a great big syns list running down the entire length of the right hand side of the page. What do you all think? Luridiformis (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think any that could still be in use should be included. I agree a shorter list could look better. J Milburn (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree that any still in use should be in the taxobox, and that the historical ones should be in a taxonomy section in article. Long lists of archaic synonyms don't look appealing, and interfere with mycomorphoboxes and right-side images. Sasata (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As well as those still in use, I think any of particular note (not sure how to judge that- case by case basis, no doubt) would belong in the taxobox. J Milburn (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think common sense rules here. Often there are ones which have been widely used until recently, which are an excellent idea to add, and there are ones which were coined in the 19th century and dropped very quickly, and I think we can happily leave them out. This should leave us with a maximum of 3 or 4 I think. We can also have a look at tricky ones. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou all...Luridiformis (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Italic titles

Wow, if you do this, the article name is italicised.

(a) do we like it (I am warming to it)

(b) a bot to do it?

Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure. I sort of like it, but I've never known how to do it before now. I think this is something that would need to have project-wide consensus, rather than just among us fungi people. That said, we could easily lead the the way, as it were. It wouldn't be too hard to knock a bot up to do it- I could probably set my bot on it. What do we think? J Milburn (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

discussion is here --> Template_talk:Taxobox_name#Auto-italicisation_of_page_name. I have not read it yet due to arb stuff etc, and may be best to ask questions there, but, yes I would love a bot to do it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Medicinal mushrooms

Can you review this page I recently created? Jatlas (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Pixies' Parasol

I've started an article (stub) on the brilliant blue Mycena interrupta.

Can anyone please add a mycomorphbox thing (or help in any way for it to be less stubby?). Thanks. —Pengo 22:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving Oyster mushroom

Hey folks, I wrote a proposal to move Oyster mushroom to Pleurotus ostreatus since the majority of the article is specific to that species. Please have a look and comment if you see fit. --EpochFail ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

dinner plate templates

Dear all, how do we feel about this template being added? I think it makes the top of the article a bit 'busy' and reduplicates information already in the mycomorphbox. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's highly redundant... equivalent edibility info summary will be in the MMbox, and expounded in the text as well (if the article's developed). Sasata (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It also look very tacky, and it looks very strange placed there... J Milburn (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Puccinia jaceae

Hello everyone at wiki-fungi. I want to create an article for Puccinia jaceae. It's the rust fungus that is being tested to control Yellow Starthistle. I can't seem to find where it fits. Is it a species of Puccinia? I notice at Puccinia there is quite a list of species with a ... at the end of the list. Does that mean some are absent? Is jaceae a synonym? If someone could just point me in the right direction I will make the stub and begin my voyage into learning about these peculiar, and sometimes ear-shaped lifeforms. Thanks all.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Anna, that's weird, just last night I was looking at the Puccinia page and thinking it needed some attention, then I checked out the Index Fungorum page, and saw there were over 5000 (!) species... so I decided to do something else. To answer your question, yes, most of the species are not mentioned. According to Fungorum, P. jaceae is currently called Puccinia hieracii var. hieracii, but I think the one you're looking for is Puccinia jaceae var. solstitialis (it seems to be the one mentioned most often in the recent literature). Good luck with the article, and hopefully it inspires you to make dozens more! Sasata (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouraging words. I am working on a draft at [1]. Now, all I need is the name of the article. Should I call it Puccinia jaceae var. solstitialis? That seems an awfully odd name for an article. When you get a sec. could you tell me the right name and any synonyms / redirects? Thanks. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, a line in the draft reads: 'It is the first pathogen approved as a classical biological control agent in the United States', which is a total copy vio. because I couldn't think of a way to reword it. Can you think of another way to put it? Thanks again.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not know the answer to your naming question, so someone else told me here. Looks like it should be Puccinia jaceae var. solstitialis. An interesting species that definitely deserves a nice article. I'll expand on it after you put it in mainspace, and get some DYK exposure, sound good? Sasata (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time on the naming issue. I took your advice and called it Puccinia jaceae var. solstitialis. I love the edits you made.

Perhaps a nice hook for DYK is the bit about it being the first the first pathogen approved by the USDA as a classical biological control agent.

If any redirects are needed, please let me know. Thanks again.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Rhodocollybia

I started Rhodocollybia and Hericium. I have no clue what I'm doing. I know nothing about mushrooms except that if you are very small, they are good to sit under when it is raining. I added a really long list of species for Rhodocollybia. Please feel free to fix it up and delete what you will. Thanks all. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I'll expand all of them in the next couple of days and submit for DYKs. Thanks for helping improve fungi coverage! Sasata (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Fungi coverage? Ha ha. I get it. I am trying to be productive, and not just, er, dead wood. Thank you so much for fixing the articles up, especially the references, with which I am hopeless. I am completely surprised that I got some of it right, (evidenced by the fact that it is still there). Much obliged! --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Great Hericium pic! Please let me know if I can help with the DKY. Cheers.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Fungus stubs

We have an awful lot of articles that have been placed in this category directly. The use of the category is redundant to the fact that they are already use stub templates. This clutters the master category, and generally looks poor- it also means that people may miss the category when removing stub tags, and it will be ignored if the stub type is being sorted. Basically, they shouldn't be there- I noticed this while I was running through some fungi articles with AWB, and someone else has picked up on it, even requesting a bot to remove them. Would anyone have any objections if I set my bot to remove them? J Milburn (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created the task request. If there's any objection to or concerns about the bot, comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/J Milburn Bot 3. J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Fungus at FAC

... and all comments are welcome! Sasata (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Italic titles

Hi all, was wondering if the Fungi project could come to a consensus about how to format species and genus article titles. See Casliber's message above and associated links for background if you're interested. Do we agree that species and genus article names should be italized? (I think this would be an uncontentious yes, but bring it up just in case...) Assuming "yes", I think the options are:

1. In the taxobox, set |name=''Agaricus examplus'' {{italictitle}}.
2. In the taxobox, remove the name parameter (or leave it blank), and the Wiki knows to italicize the article title.

A problem arises in the case of genera that have (fungus) or (genus) attached to their name because of a naming conflict at the time of article creation; am not sure if there's any way to display these article names italicized, and without the parenthetical information. I ask because I intend to go through the several thousand fungi stubs in the coming months and improve them, and it would be nice to have this parameter consistent. Sasata (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got no great opinion either way- either for or against italicising the titles, or either method. J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

AWBing articles?

Just noticed that most of the articles in a number of the species lists are redlinks. Would there be any objection to a bunch of them being filled along the pattern of articles such as Mycosphaerella angulata, for instance? I don't want to step on any toes, but I can do a lot of stuff fairly quickly if you'd like. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have no objection, but I know Sasata does a lot of that stuff already- you may be best off asking him. His mass-creations are generally very good, as he has access to a lot of strong sources. J Milburn (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be wary, as alot of fungal taxa are poorly known and in a state of flux. I fear the rates of glitches might be quite high. I know there was a recent one with algae. Vertebrates were alot easier. I'd like to hear from Sasata on this but I'd worry we'd make a lot of incorrect articles we'd have to erase or move. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

For an example of how not to create articles on mass, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anybot's algae articles. Not meaning to be negative, just trying to learn from others' mistakes. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Typically I like to cross-check a number of different databases and the literature before turning a species article from red to bluelink. In general, I've been mass-creating fungus articles so that all taxa are represented down to genera level. In general, I'm reluctant to create individual species articles unless I know there's a least a few references to fill up the article; many species are mentioned only once in a single publication and for now its probably better to deal with those by having a summary in a genus-level article. Of course, there's some exceptions. For example, there will soon be an article for every known species of Gymnopilus (about 250), part of a side project to have the first fungus monograph on Wikipedia. These articles I create offline and then upload when I'm confident they're in reasonable stub-shape. Thanks kindly for the offer, but I think mass-creating with a script would lose that "personal touch", and that last double-check before the article goes live. Sasata (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no worries. Just looking for any excuse to use AWB. :-) Though in all seriousness, I do remember the whole algae-bot incident; I'm sorry it worked out the way it did. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

List of deadly fungi

Okay folks, can anyone think of any species of deadly or potentially deadly (note second section for isolated mortalities) fungi that are not currently on the List of deadly fungi list for which we have a source? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find anything. How about citations for toxicity claims and habitat? If you could cite one of the entries, I'll follow the format and help fill sources for some of the others. Sasata (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The article could do with a few more sources generally, and an introductory paragraph would be nice. Roger Phillips (ISBN 0330264419) notes that the following, which do not appear on the list, are deadly- Amanita pantherina, Amanita gemmata and Cortinarius speciosissimus. He also notes that Amanita muscaria has had deaths associated with it- I'm assuming it was a conscious choice to leave it off? All of this came from a list on page seven- naturally, there were also several mushrooms that were already included. J Milburn (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Cortinarius speciosissimus --> rubellus. I am really unconvinced about A. muscaria and mused on adding it, but felt it was more misleading actually adding it as it was thought to be deadly but isn't. I will read up on pantherina which I had read somewhere may have been overestimated in its dangerousness too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

So A. muscaria has never caused deaths? It would surely fit into the second column? Found some more possibilities. According to Psilocybin mushrooms of the world: an identification guide, Galerina autumnalis is very deadly, and Galerina cinnamomea and Gallerina venenata are also listed as deadly (see page 195). Page 196 mentions Pholiotina filaris as deadly.^{Already listed.} Apparently, all those listed above produce "the same toxins as the destroying angels". I'm guessing this list could be expanded massively- according to this article, there are over 20 deadly mushrooms in Quebec alone, and I doubt that even counts non-mushroom fungi (are we including them on this list?) J Milburn (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Good ones to add :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: This paper concludes several Galerina species (including autumnalis) are syonyms of marginata. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions for monotypic genera

Hi all. In a current fungal FAC about the monotypic genus Polyozellus, Jimfbleak raised a good point about the naming convention for this type of article. Are there reasons I'm missing for not naming it after the species rather the genus? I guess some issues may arise in the future if another species is discovered, and the article has to be modified. Opinions? Sasata (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

if what the article is mainly about is the organism, then I suspect the specific name is a better one for the article title. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Will Work for Comments

Polyozellus is languishing at FAC... would appreciate any comments on how to improve the article. Also, I'm thinking of trying to get List of Armillaria species to featured list status, and was wondering what other info (if any) I should put in there. There's room for hundreds of similar "list of xxxx species" articles, so perhaps this might serve as a sort of template for further efforts? Also, compare List of Cyathus species; in that case, I had an excellent monograph available to easily fill in the details, but maybe there's too much technical info for a Wikipedia article? Sasata (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I will add my comments to the FAC now. Also, I feel featured lists could be something that we, as a project, could write well (as well as the species one, the "deadly fungi" one above would be a fascinating list to feature). I had fleeting hopes of a featured list before I realised how limited my technical knowledge was, but would certainly support/be happy to help others with featured lists. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the deadly fungi list would be awesome as a FL, and I suspect, will be quite popular in terms of pageviews. It will take some effort to find good refs for everything, but would be a very worthwhile effort. Sasata (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Rhodotus

Another mushroom taxon at FAC. As always, comments gratefully received! Sasata (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Need IDs

• 
  1. Russula sp.
• 
  2. Ramariopsis kunzei?

Both found in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (North Carolina side). Kaldari (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The pink-capped mushroom is a Russula species, which can be notoriously difficult to make a diagnosis to species level :( I am in Oz so have little knowledge of Eastern US species...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Russula emetica comes to mind, but yah, red-capped Russulas are difficult. More information required (nearby trees, microscopy, taste, etc.) Sasata (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

According to [2], the Russula species found in the park are: Russula albidula, Russula compacta, Russula cyanoxantha, Russula emetica, Russula roseipes, and Russula subfloridana. Of those, I think only Russula emetica and Russula roseipes fit the color. Kaldari (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The red pigment can also leach out with rain or sunshine - was it raining recently? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Any opinions on the Ramariopsis species? Kaldari (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Have IDs

I sat down with the local mycologists at the university and managed to get quite a few old photos with more precise ids. Unfortunately they were not interested in taking herbarium specimens of future photos (assuming that I could get a permit) due to time constraints. Most of these are redlinked or redirects if anyone is looking for articles to write. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• 
  Armillaria luteobubalina
• 
  Fomes hemitephrus
• 
  14 - Mycena austrofilopes
• 16 - Marasmius elegans
  16 - Marasmius elegans
• 
  17 - Cruentomycena viscidocruenta
• 
  18 - Entoloma austroprunicolor
• 
  19 - Entoloma rodwayi
• 
  5 - Galerina patagonica
• 
  Mycena vinacea
• 
  Mycena kuurkacea or Mycena toyerlaricola
• 
  Mycena nargan
• 
  Amanita ochrophylloides
• 
  Amanita ochrophylloides
• 
  Pholiota malicola

Oh, some of the papers here: [3] would be quite useful. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent - more FPs coming up! I'll start some species articles this weekend. Sasata (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The photo of the putative Amanita ochrophylloides looks completely different than the one observation at Mushroom Observer, posted by a well-known mycologist, and commented on by one of the world's leading Amanita experts. Have you uploaded this pic over there (for a second opinion)? Sasata (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It is there (http://mushroomobserver.org/22359?search_seq=850979). I'll shoot an email and double check. I'm told appearance can change a surprising amount with age. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Will help out when I have time. I also suggest asking Rodham Tuloss. I can ask Alec Wood too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: Heavy going getting some to 1500 kb text....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know whatcha mean, I can hardly find anything on some; it doesn't help that some species are fairly new as well. Oh well, there's gotta be at least a couple DYK's in the bunch. Sasata (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Aspergillus on tomato pic

This delightful picture was uploaded to commons by User:Multimotyl, who also added it to Aspergillus. Multimotyl says it's Aspergillus based on what a friend who studies biology said ([4]). Two questions:

1. Ought this pic appear on Aspergillus without further verification of the identity of the fungus?
2. Can anyone identify the spherical structures? Sporangia? Any idea why some are white, some black, and some intermediate? I'm thinking this picture would be great to illustrate whatever those structures are.

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no problem with it appearing in Aspergillus if there is no more specific identification- we have FPs in a similar state. As for providing a more specific ID, well, I certainly can't. J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that they are conidia borne on conidiophores, and the different colors represents different stages of development. But I'm not an expert, I just play one on WikiPedia :) Sasata (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Gah, sorry folks, I shouldn't try to write so late at night. Let me rephrase:

1. I doubt even an expert could identify the species on the basis of this photograph. What I meant to ask was, is "my friend says it's Aspergillus" sufficient verification for us to label the picture as such? I'm not sure how strict the verifiability threshold is for self-taken pictures.
2. Yes, I thought they looked like the conidiophores I've seen on A. oryzae or A. nidulans ("sporangia" is a more general term). But again, I'm not sure whether we'd need more formal verification before adding the picture to conidia or whatever.

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no formal process of identification. There are external websites, such as Mushroom Observer, which can aid with identification, but that would be less useful here. "My friend who's a biologist" sounds a reasonable ID to me. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fungus etiquette

I'm used to studying animals, so I have no idea what's expected in a paper about a fungus. For example, if I write about Danio rerio, it's appropriate to mention the order and family (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae) and also the authority (Buchanon-Hamilton, 1822). However, I'm getting ready to do a study on baker's yeast and am not sure how to address it. I am aware that botanists omit the year, order, and family, and abbreviate the authority's name where possible, but seem to include more authorities than I am used to crediting. Do fungi follow similar quirky rules? Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about a real-life journal article or a Wikipedia article? If the former, it's usual custom to mention order:family and perhaps authority at first mention of the species. In this particular case however, I would think that since the organism in question is so well-known that in most cases authors might not even bother to include this info... a quick scan of some recent papers on Pubmed confirms this. In general, fungi follow the botanical rules for nomenclature. Does this help answer your question? Sasata (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sort of. So if (and it sounds like in this case it's not necessary) I were to provide such info in my paper, I might include (Saccharomycetales: Saccharomycetacea) in the title and (Meyen ex E.C. Hansen) without the year following the first mention of the name within the text. Right? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Categorising articles

I would like to advise our collaborators to practice more caution when adding categories to fungal articles, especially those with taxonomic standing higher than species level. Adding categories relating to edibility or locale to articles (e.g. Cyathus) is incorrect as these are not characteristics of the Genus Cyathus itself, but rather individual species. Now, we all strive to wikify our articles to the greatest extents, but it's necessary to address this issue.--Paffka (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

In general, I agree. But in the case of Cyathus, every species in the genus is inedible, so why not add that cat to the genus level? Or how about Suillus, where every member is known to be edible? But yeah, in retrospect, the location cats should be removed from Cyathus article as they don't equally apply to all members of the genus. How about we just take it on a case-by-case basis, and if a general location or edibility cat is supported by a source in the article we allow it? Sasata (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

In general I have restricted my own use of the cats to species level - Sasata makes a good point though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that each case requires an individual decision. Look at Caloscypha for example - there's no point in creating an entirely new page for the sole member of the genus. This is not a great issue, but if it was up to me in most cases I'd limit edibility categories to species level, because the larger the group of mushrooms is, the more complicated it is to keep track of what stays common to them all.

By the way, I just created a new article on Pholiota flammans, and if anyone is interested, you're more than welcome to fix it up and submit to DYK. :)--Paffka (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice! I am, and I will :) Sasata (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Well done to everybody that participated!--Paffka (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Fungi to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 06:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What species is the mushroom in this photo?

I have posted a question at the Science reference desk asking for help identifying a species of mushroom. I have a beautiful set of five photographs of three of these mushrooms. I'd like to use them on Wikipedia. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

After feedback I have uploaded my images as Amanita muscaria to the Wikipedia Commons. There are five of them, one of which shows the gills of the mushroom. I put a gallery at the above discussion if you wish to see the remainder of the photos. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oomycete

This picture is currently used in the taxobox for Oomycete, I just wanted to see if people are sure that this is actually an oomycete and not a fungus that grows in water. It's pretty confusing that water moulds are not in fact what most people would call mould and therefore I can see someone making a mistake with this image. It's particularly relevant as the image is also used in the oomycete stub notice. I posted here as I thought people here would be most likely to know, whilst on the topic, should oomycete really have a wikiproject fungi tag? They're more related to algae than fungi... Cheers Smartse (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

On a similar note slime mold articles like Physarum cinereum are tagged as being part of Wikiproject Fungi, should they really be when they aren't actually fungi? Smartse (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No, technically neither are fungi, although historically they used to be considered so. The 10th ed. of the Dictionary of the Fungi still lists the slime molds in a section called "chromistan fungal analogues", (but does not have a listing for oomycetes). When I wrote a DYK on the Dog vomit slime mold, I appended the WP:fungi tag for sentimental reasons; I figured how could it be bad if the neglected slimes get a little extra love from the fungi people? But if you want to remove the fungi tag from those pages, you are free to do so, I will shed a tear silently. (p.s. I have no idea about that picture) Sasata (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more, is there anything stopping us from expanding our scope to include slime molds in wp:Fungi coverage, if everyone agrees? I can't see that harming anything, and it would increase the chance these articles would get worked on... Sasata (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems pretty sensible, they're much more like fungi in appearance than the oomycetes. I personally think the oomycetes should be under the Microbiology WikiProject rather than this, AFAIK they don't ever form visible structures. Regarding the picture, it does seem more likely that it is an aquatic fungus and not a water mould (bloody confusing!) - I'll go ahead and change it. Smartse (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to add featured picture stars to taxoboxes

There is a proposal at the Village Pump[5] to add featured picture stars to featured pictures in article space (below the featured picture, in its caption box, or image caption box in the case of taxoboxes with featured pictures.

The discussion includes asking the question whether they should be added to all featured pictures in articles including in taxoboxes, added just to featured pictures in caption boxes only and not to featured pictures in taxoboxes, or not added at all. Currently to find out if an image is a featured picture the user has to click on the image and its file page indicates with a star in the upper right hand corner that it is a featured picture.

To join the discussion and express your opinion go to the Village Pump. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Silver leaf

How about merging silver leaf (fungal disease vernacular name) into Chondrostereum purpureum? --Una Smith (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

About a year ago, someone left a note on this talk page about combining diseases with the organisms that cause them. Personally, I haven't worked enough on fungal disease articles to have an opinion about them. Sasata (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd definitely say go for it. It is illogical to have two articles about what is effectively the same topic, the main article I can think of where the are merged is potato blight which is included in the Phytophthora infestans article rather than having a separate article. The two topics are almost always explicitly linked so having two articles doesn't make sense. I can see what the previous poster meant a year ago but if a disease outbreak is notable enough then it will have a separate article like Irish potato famine. I did a similar thing a few weeks ago by merging yellow fever virus into yellow fever. Smartse (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC) _{signed belatedly}

Distribution map How-to page

FYI, I've created a little tutorial for how to make those nifty species distribution maps that people sometimes add to taxoboxes: Wikipedia:Distribution maps. Enjoy. Kaldari (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

150 DYK goal for 2009?

Seeing as this year's DYK list has suddenly stopped short of 147, with two and a half weeks remaining, I was wondering if anyone had any plans for such a target. Personally, I'm working on Cystodermella cinnabarina which I'm planning to upload in a couple of days, and maybe with a bit more info and an image which are hard to come by, it could be done DYK worthy.--Paffka (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. 3 should be easy...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have an idea for a Christmas-related fungus DYK, so mark me up for one. I'm mostly saving up articles for next year. (p.s. 200 fungus DYK's for 2010) Sasata (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm home from university now, so I should hopefully have some more time on my hands. I'm sure I could stretch to a funal DYK in the next couple of weeks. Let's do it! J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to think of one which had a vaguely interesting hook for DYK...browsed tricholoma and realised we still didn't have an article on Tricholoma saponaceum so I started one as the soap smell is an ok hook. Will add more when I get to my books. Australian fungi can be difficult to scrape up info on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto - 5x expand on Boletus subtomentosus - the common names are funny enough for a hook I think "suede bolete"...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Cystodermella cinnabarina article is up and running. I invite everyone to improve it as they please and to think up an interesting hook. I thought up something about it being widely distributed but rare.--Paffka (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what extra info I can dig up. While looking, I noticed there's a species called Cystoderma superbum... surely there's a funny DYK hook in there somewhere (maybe for April fool's day?) Sasata (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

E.g. "DYK that C. superbum is purple and has no odor?" Sasata (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Common name disambiguation

It might be worthwhile to create a template for common name disambiguation pages, analogous to {{plant common name}}[6]. This could promote a format more specifically utile than a basic dab page. ENeville (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)