Talk:Fungus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Fungus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 17, 2009.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 25, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
August 22, 2009 Featured article candidate Promoted
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of July 16, 2006.
Current status: Featured article
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

To do list[edit]

  • Pathogens that attack fungi

Please add references to viruses and bacteria that attack fungi (see this article), as the article only describes how fungus attacks other organisms but lacks a section on its vulnerability to attack from other life forms. See also: mycovirus and Mycopathogenic bacteria. Thanks goes to the wikipedia science section help desk editors for their research into this topic. 74.71.135.72 (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


Added a section on mycoparasites . Please feel free to improve, as I'm not an expert. KBi (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2016[edit]

You should add Fungi (Caribbean Dish), which redirects to Cou-cou to the "you may be looking for" section at the top. 67.174.242.129 (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Trailing periods after authors in citations[edit]

(see vauthors vs. authors and vauthors vs. authors citation style for background)

I propose removing the redundant trailing period after the authors in the citations in this article by replacing |authors= with |vauthors= in {{cite journal}} and {{cite book}} templates.

Currently this article formats authors to citations in Vancouver style followed by period before the date. The use of trailing periods after the authors is part of the Vancouver system where it makes grammatical sense since this period separates authors from the title. However the combination of {{cite journal}} with |authors= or |vauthors= follows neither the Vancouver system nor the default WP:CS1 style, but is a hybrid. In {{cite journal}}, the date is parenthetically placed after the authors, and hence it makes sense to place the period after the date. Placing a period before and after the date as this article currently does is redundant.

The newer |vauthors= parameter (1) produces clean metadata, (2) is fully compatible with the auxiliary |author-linkn= and |display authors= parameters, and (3) contains error checking to make sure that the authors are consistently formatted according to the Vancouver system. |authors= has none of these advantages. Furthermore the trailing period is not supported by the |vauthors= parameter and in fact triggers an error message.

User:Sasata in this edit objected to this change on the basis of consistency (some authors lists will have ending periods, some not) and WP:CITEVAR. To the best of my knowledge, the version after my edit was completely internally consistent (no author list had trailing periods). WP:CITEVAR says don't change citation format unless there is consensus to do so. I am now asking if there is consensus to make this relatively minor change to the citation format of this article. Boghog (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sasata: I have asked if there is consensus in replacing |authors= with |vauthors= in this article. You have not responded to my detailed arguments above in favor of this change. Hence I interpret your non-response as agreement that the substitution should be made. Do you agree with my interpretation? Boghog (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
No. There does not appear to be consensus for making the change. Sasata (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Sasata: Currently there is only one editor that has objected to this change. The project was asked the question here and no one else objected. Currently there are two editors that favor the change, Tom.Reding and myself. Consensus however is based on the quality of argument. We have argued that including the extra period is redundant and grammatically incorrect. Furthermore |vauthors= produces (1) clean metadata, (2) is fully compatible with |display-authors= and |author-link=, and (3) contains error checking to ensure that the authors list conforms to the Vancouver style. |authors= does none of these things. The only valid argument that has been offered against this change is WP:CITEVAR. Without supporting arguments, this argument essentially boils down to "I just like it" which doesn't carry much weight. The other argument that has been offered is consistency. However after my edits, the citation style was completely consistent and the reversion of my edits has reintroduced inconsistency. Based on strength of arguments, there is in fact consensus for this change. Boghog (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The absence of consensus you speak of doesn't exist; the consensus is well-established. Pages using |authors= and |editors= will be given their own maintenance categories on the next module update, so "hiding" purposefully malformed name-lists via these two parameters will no longer be an option.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  05:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I favour the change. I went through journal articles I had at hand, or could readily find online, looking for citation formats that do not put periods after the name or initial of every author, and which follow the author list immediately with a year in parentheses. It was difficult to find journals that use that format, but I found four (PLoS Genetics, Biotech Letters, Biochemical Education, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci). None of the four put a period before the year, meaning they all format in the style of |vauthors=. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 06:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I also favor the change. I see no benefit of having that extra period, and some benefit to removing it. A few fungus articles are this way. I had a similar experience at Yeast I think. Ajpolino (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Wow, it appears that Sasata has retired over this issue. :-( This is really unfortunate since he has been a prolific content creator and hence I feel really badly about pressing this issue. Hopefully he will reconsider and rejoin the project. Boghog (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Since there appears to be general consensus for the change, I went ahead and implemented it. Boghog (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Sexual Spores[edit]

Neurospora crassa life cycle.jpg

I'm not a professional, just a person trying to understand fungi, wondering if this information under ===spore dispersal=== is accurate: "Both asexual and sexual spores or sporangiospores are often actively ..." Is there such a thing as a sexual spore? I had the impression that spores were by definition asexual. Stevenarntson (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There sure is! See the image at right, for example. The conidia are asexual spores as they are genetically identical to one another and to the organism they came from. Whereas the ascospores are sexual spores as they are produced by meiosis and each is genetically unique. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 11:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Semantic error in lead[edit]

This sentence in the lead

In the past, mycology was regarded as a branch of botany; today it is a separate kingdom in biological taxonomy. needs to be fixed as follows:

In the past, mycology was regarded as a branch of botany; today it is a separate discipline in biological taxonomy.

Thanks. 81.131.172.150 (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Mycology isn't really a subdiscipline of taxonomy, so I just deleted the second half of the sentence and let it flow straight on to the bit about fungi being more closely related to animals than plants. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 11:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fungus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Low-importance in Medicine Project ?[edit]

Fungi is tightly related with medicine. Many diseases are related with fungi, and fungi can produce antibiotic. In addition, fungi are one of the most focused organisms in pathobiology, an important course for students with major in medical science and an essential research topic in basic medical researches. So in my opinion, fungi in medicine project may be of at least Mid-importance.--!Panzerkampfwagen! (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)