Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


March 2016 update[edit]

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


I saw Casliber added a GA manually to the Project's page today. Are you aware that User:JL-Bot can automatically generate those lists for you? See User:JL-Bot/Project content. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I just realized this this wouldn't have pinged User:Casliber, so here's the ping. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
That made my ears Will take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@Headbomb: I was looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Recognized astronomy content - where is the JL-Bot documentation (i.e. where would I put it on this project)...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@Casliber: At User:JL-Bot/Project_content. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
No I saw that, but where do I put one with Fungi in it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Two options I guess, one being on Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi directly, wherever you want the list to appear. The other is to create a subpage (something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi/Recognized content) and put it there. You can then transclude that page on Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi wherever you want the lists to appear. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok - let me of the downsides is loss of formatting from (for example) the DYKs all in chronological order...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Could probably turn that into a feature request at User talk:JL-Bot. JLaTondre is pretty good at implementing them usually. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Casliber: Chronological order has been setup for a while btw. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Articles in press?[edit]

So I found a paper that renames a couple boletes, but it's in press. It has been accepted, just not published yet. I can read the abstract and I wouldn't have access to the paper anyway. Would it be okay to cite or should I wait? Dgrootmyers (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a link? Depends on the scenario but might be an idea to wait.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Cupreoboletus? I'd usually wait until it was indexed by either Index Fungorum or MycoBank. Sasata (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I saw the Cupreoboletus paper. I'd be wary of a monotypic genus - the genus splitting has attracted some criticism as yeah, shouldn't be long for the other sources to catch up if ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not the Cupreoboletus paper, although that's pretty cool and I look forward to it coming out. It's this. It transfers Boletus tenax to Xerocomus (I think), B. projectellus and B. mirabilis to Aureoboletus, B. subglabripes to Hemileccinum and names some new Boletellus and Heimioporus species. IMO, some of the newer monotypic bolete genera are probably going to end up sunk into other genera, but Boletus sensu lato is definitely polyphyletic, so some of them are probably here to stay. Also, there are still a ton of Boletus species that haven't been sequenced so some of these monotypic genera might end up with more species in them, like Imleria did. Dgrootmyers (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, obviously boletus is being chopped to pieces, which is good as it was one of the biggest wastebasket taxa I know. However, I do wonder, for instance about Suillellus and Rubroboletus - maybe they'd hjave been better as one genus with two subgenera but whatever...main thing is that the clades now have concrete names, which makes classification alot easier.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Identification of some lichens[edit]

Dear colleagues,
couldn't you help with identification of these lichens from mountains of Crimea:

I suppose that 1 and 2 are Evernia and 3 and 4 are Xanthoria, but is it possible to identify them reliably? Stas (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Although you are probably right about the genera, many lichens are notoriously difficult to identify to species, even with the specimen in front in you, and reagents and id books besides you (does it sound like I'm speaking from experience?) You might have better luck at Mushroom Observer, as there are a few lichen aficionados that contribute there. Sasata (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)



Anyone want to develop this page together? Give it a proper landing page?

Yihengsong (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Student guidebook for fungus articles[edit]

Hello all; I'm writing on behalf of the Wiki Education Foundation, which works with instructors who assign university students to write or edit Wikipedia articles in the United States and Canada. We're developing a print handbook for students who will write or expand articles on living species, including plants and fungi. I'd appreciate any feedback on the draft! It is open for comment until November 5th; after that we will set it to print. Thanks so much! Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this Lepiota felina?[edit]

Is this Lepiota felina?

May I ask, are the fungi in the picture really Lepiota felina, as the title and the description of the file on Commons suggest? I am confused since I cannot see any ring.

Thank you. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


The Fructose Lichen: it never specifies if it is to be confused with the fructose we eat. Is it the fructose we eat? I am so confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DryBananaHippieHat (talkcontribs) 05:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

  • No. "Fruticose" lichens are lichens that are free-standing and branched. "Fructose" is a sugar. Dgrootmyers (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article and FAC[edit]

I just wanted to stop by to introduce Corinne; she'll continue to help out at TFA and will be focusing for now on WP:PLANTS, WP:MAMMALS and WP:FUNGI. She'll also be helping out with prose reviews at FAC, and I'm available to answer questions about FAC or TFA any time. - Dank (push to talk) 16:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

this is good news as biology articles often move slowly at FAC....@Corinne: you are most wlecome to look at Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

High quality fungi images from Flickr[edit]

I've started transferring some nice fungi images to Commons from Flickr; they can be found at commons:Category:Files uploaded by INeverCry (Fungi). If anyone can help with categories and descriptions, that would be very much appreciated. I'll be adding more images as I find new photosets on Flickr. INeverCry 21:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Inkcaps, Ink-caps[edit]

I observe that Inkcap is a page listing articles on various fungi so called, in three genera; while Ink-cap is a redirect to Coprinus, an article which explains that most former members of that genus have been reclassified. It might be best to merge the two. Maproom (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I assume you meant ink cap, rather than ink-cap? I've redirected the former as you suggested, and created the latter as a redirect to inkcap. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Issue when updating a proven fact about Morchella diminutiva having an association with Asimina triloba[edit]

As far as I have seen and most notably by the citizens of Missouri , Illinois , Indiana , Ohio , Kentucky , and other states. It is without a doubt that Morchella diminutiva has an affinity for locations underneath clonal stands of Asimina triloba. When pointing this out the information was promptly deleted by Sasata. I'm concerned there is an attempt to conceal a real fact. A more recognized enthusiast, Chris Matherly agrees with this observation made by many citizens of the eastern sections of the United States. The territorial ranges for M. diminutiva and Asimina triloba are parallel and coincide. It is important to note that M. diminutiva occurs where A. triloba is the understory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcidHorse (talkcontribs) 17:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source when adding information to articles. Sasata (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Taxobox discussion[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Redundancies in the taxoboxes for a discussion about the format of taxoboxes for species and below. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

vauthors vs. authors citation style[edit]

I seem to be at an impasse with Sasata. Despite explaining the problem, they are continuing to ignore consensus without providing an explanation. So, in the absence of any forthcoming information, I'm here to ask if there is any desire for WP:FUNGI to prefer a citation style which destroys author COinS metadata, in favor of Sasata's use of |authors= to force a terminal period at the end of the author list:

Last FM, Last FM. (2001). Title. (year included)
Last FM, Last FM. Title. (year excluded)

or to maintain the citation's metadata by using |vauthors= (when the name-formatting allows), which the citation then renders without a terminal author-period when a year is given:

Last FM, Last FM (2001). Title. (year included)
Last FM, Last FM. Title. (year excluded)

Literally the only difference is the extra period, which comes at the expense of the disposal of the author/editor metadata.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Additional advantages of |vauthors= is that it is compatible with the auxiliary parameters |display-authors= and |author-linkn= and contains error checking to insure that the authors are displayed consistently, whereas |authors= does not.
  • The use of trailing periods after the author list is part of the Vancouver system where it makes grammatical sense since this period separates authors from the title. 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 sentence does not end until after the date, and hence it makes sense to place the period after the date. Placing a period before and after the date is redundant. Boghog (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I personally have no preference. Frustrating as using the drop down box forces me to use "first= | last=" all the time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
There is always the Wikipedia template filling tool. Not quite as convenient, but it does output |vauthors= instead of |first= / |last=. Boghog (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thanks for that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I have no visual preference. As long as the citations can be easily followed, I'm not much bothered by where the punctuation is. As such, I'd prefer the style that maintains the metadata since that seems to be the most useful. (As far as ease of use, I generally put in the pmid or doi then hit the "Citations" button and let CitationBot do my dirty work for me. If he can't figure out the reference, I use |author1, |author2... since |last1, |first1... is maddeningly slow. If this is creating problems down the line, I'd appreciate it if someone would let me know!).Ajpolino (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: why can't we make the vauthors= have a period like Sasata says is needed? (I am not experienced with these things) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I asked the same question at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Author-list period option for vauthors? before coming here. My suggestion was for an optional citation parameter (akin to |postscript=.) that produces this extra period, if there's a good reason to show it. However, all the citation templates are currently consistent, and not by lack of discussion, so all author & editor parameters' functionality across all templates would have to be changed. This needs a much broader and lengthy discussion to build consensus, which would probably be hard to establish, I assume, given the current argument for the extra period (that is, no argument, only personal preference).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf) 

Largest fungal fruit bodies[edit]

I've just come across this article by a relatively new user. It is potentially a useful list, but currently is not as strong as it could be. I've put a little work into it, but I think there's more to be done; if anyone has a few minutes to spare, you could probably do worse than having a look at this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Red Links on the Red List[edit]

Over half of the species the IUCN has on their red list are red links. The full list is here:

The list is only short though; there's only 17 red links. Anyone looking to start some new articles on species of fungi? —Pengo 02:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks for that - need to reconcile with current or old names as many might have articles. Will check now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
agree this is a little sad, almost as much as the scant number of funal taxa that make it to IUCN at all. Also Pleurotus nebrodensis needs to be detangled from Pleurotus nebrodensis ssp. nebrodensis as only the latter is IUCN listed. Nessie (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


Our champion mycophile! [1] Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 03:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a sad day. What prompted @Sasata:'s retirement? Plantdrew (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I've just noticed this. It is indeed sad. I have left him a quick note on his talk page; others may want to as well. I know he has been less active partly because wrist/joint problems made contributing difficult, but he may have been put off by ongoing arguments about citation styles. I was recently involved in an unrelated argument on a similar topic and can attest to the frustration felt. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes. I recall a similar situation in 2012 when RJHall retired. Several bird wikiproject editors retired after the capitization debate in 2014 reached a head. I dunno. Wikipedia is a funny thing. I recently realised I'd been editing here for ten years. I can't imagine stopping...but then again the idea of editing for a lifetime is pretty weird too. I suspect it's multifactorial but I can see Sasata was pretty unhappy about the formatting of references. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
RJHall's retirement (which I wasn't even aware of until now) seems eerily similar to Sasata's. My only interaction with Sasata was over the |authors=-trailing-period citation style issue. I've tried to be as open as I could, and providing ample opportunity for accommodation via discussion, which unfortunately never happened, probably (at least in part, I now know) due to physical ailments. This undoubtedly caused frustration on both sides of the argument, though I had no idea it was so great.
It's easy to see how prolific he was. I was (and am) amazed by all the articles authored and contributed to by him as I poke(d) around, and I do wish he returns on his own accord and in better spirits. I would only hope that more editors, especially subject matter experts, espoused EauOo's Wikipedia philosophy (which I came across just now randomly while looking at RJHall's last contributions) whether it be gnome vs. gnome, or anyone vs. anyone.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Help with a new page[edit]

Hi everyone, I was seeing if I could have a few sets of eyes on Harposporium anguillulae. This is a page I'm trying to re-write, as the topic seems notable, however this area is not my forte. Specifically I'd like to start with the taxobox on the page and go from there. Any insight you could share would be great. Again thanks! RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: The easiest thing to do in most cases is to just copy paste the taxobox from another species in the same genus and change the relevant details. If there are no other articles on species in the same genus (as is the case here), copy paste the taxobox from the genus and add details. You can also copy appropriate stub sorting templates and taxonomic categories from an article on another species or the genus. There's a fairly odd situation in play with H. anguillulae; the appropriate scientific name might be Podocrella harposporifera. See Teleomorph, anamorph and holomorph for an explanation of this situation. Plantdrew (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Cedar Leaf Blight[edit]

I've added new content and further improved the page on the folair fungus Didymascella thujina (Cedar leaf blight) . I would like to add it as link(?) to the WikiProject Fungi. How is this done?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkope (talkcontribs) 16:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Hkope (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Hkope August 31, 2016

Hi there, thanks for the message; it's great to see a leaf blight article getting some attention. The article is already listed as falling under the scope of WikiProject Fungi- see the template on the article talk page. I'm on my lunch right now, so no time for anything but a quick look; I've made some quick initial tweaks to the article and I'll aim to find some more time for a proper look this evening. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

BioRxiv support in citations[edit]

This project's feedback would be appreciated in this discussion, as this could greatly (and positively) affect biological citations! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

ID question[edit]

Mushroom, West Michigan.jpg

Can anyone help me with an ID for this mushroom? It was growing in closed canopy forest on Lake Michigan sand dunes. I don't have the first clue about fungus ID. Guettarda (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Damn, possibly a species of Boletellus but I'd only be guessing...need to think about how to key it out...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
A bolete would definitely be my guess, but beyond that it's hard to say; the cap seems to be smooth as does the stipe, so I would have thought not Boletellus. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
To me it looks like what is now Hortiboletus rubellus (formerly Boletus rubellus or Xerocomus rubellus). Strobilomyces (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship[edit]

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Greetings WikiProject Fungi Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 17:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Identification question[edit]

May you please help me identifying these bracket fungi?--Nikos Andronikos (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

My guess for the left-hand one is Fomitopsis pinicola. Strobilomyces (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics list[edit]

My list of missing topics about fungi is updated - Skysmith (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)fungi

Hanns Kreisel[edit]

Can anyone access reliable sources about Hanns Kreisel having passed away very recently? German WP's article de:Hanns Kreisel gives 18 January 2017 as his date of death, but without sources (the only source added since that date was written earlier [2]). Online, I only found where, on 19 January, a contributor reports it. That won't do as a reference. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion[edit]

WikiJournal of Science logo.svg

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.[1][2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia.

Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas:


  • See submissions through external academic peer review
  • Format accepted articles
  • Promote the journal


  • Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
  • Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review)
  • Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

  1. ^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M. "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001.
  2. ^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomy templates updated[edit]

Project members who create taxonomy templates, please see Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system#Taxonomy templates updated. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed podetium merge[edit]

Comments welcomed at Talk:Thallus#Merge - April 2017. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed page move[edit]

You are all invited to give a piece of your mind at Talk:Stachybotrys chartarum#Requested move 4 May 2017. Thank you for your contributions!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report[edit]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Fungi.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Fungi, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Question from a WP:FUNGI newbie[edit]

I'm relatively new to this project (having recently fallen headlong into the lichen trap) and have just nominated my first fungi article for GA. Do I need to add that to the appropriate section on the project page, or is there a bot that does that automatically? It's Physcia caesia, in case anybody feels inspired! Many thanks to Plantdrew for giving me some initial suggestions... MeegsC (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Great to see! There's no bot that will add the article to the WikiProject page, but I'm not sure how many people watch the page anyway. Fungi articles are often picked up very quickly, so I suspect you won't have to wait long! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

New set of major edits to articles on microfungi proposed for wiki edu project[edit]

For the past several years I have taught a 4th year undergraduate course in medical and veterinary mycology at the University of Toronto. Each year I have assigned my students to work on articles on biomedically important microfungi. To date we created or revised nearly 100 articles. This year I am proposing the following taxa for us to work on. We won't get to all of these, but I'm hoping to do at least 28 or so. This list is based in part on the existing stub articles on microfungi that receive substantial page views in addition to a few taxa that I think urgently need an article. I invite anyone in this group who might be interested to review our articles to visit the wiki edu course page.

Medmyco (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Outline of Ascomycota - 2007[edit]

The Myconet article "Outline of Ascomycota – 2007" is cited in 2,700+ articles, nearly always as:

Lumbsch TH, Huhndorf SM. (December 2007). "Outline of Ascomycota – 2007". Myconet. Chicago, USA: The Field Museum, Department of Botany. 13: 1–58. Archived from the original on 2009-03-18.

This citation appears to contain a few errors and missing parameters; however, in light of the number of articles affected, I am seeking consensus on two points before making any large-scale changse.

1. What should be the final wikicode of the citation?

I propose:

{{cite journal |date=31 December 2007 |editor1-last=Lumbsch |editor1-first=H. Thorsten |editor2-last=Huhndorf |editor2-first=Sabine M. |title=Outline of Ascomycota - 2007 |url= |access-date=25 December 2017 |journal=[[Myconet]] |publisher=[[The Field Museum]], Department of Botany |location=Chicago |volume=13 |pages=1–58 |issn=1403-1418 |archive-url= |archive-date=18 March 2009 |dead-url=no}}

which produces:

Lumbsch, H. Thorsten; Huhndorf, Sabine M., eds. (31 December 2007). "Outline of Ascomycota - 2007". Myconet. Chicago: The Field Museum, Department of Botany. 13: 1–58. ISSN 1403-1418. Archived from the original on 18 March 2009. Retrieved 25 December 2017.

The new wikicode:

  • Expands the first names of the editors, and corrects Lumbsch's name—it is "H. Thorsten" or "H. T.", not "TH".
  • Identifies Lumbsch and Huhndorf as editors, consistent with the linked source ("(eds.)").
  • Links Myconet and The Field Museum.
  • Adds the ISSN.
  • Corrects the parameter |dead-url=yes to |dead-url=no.
2. Should the citation be hardcoded within each article, or created as a template and transcluded?

The former is generally preferred for citations but the latter allows future updates to be made at a single location, without touching 2,700+ articles for every change.

Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like most of these were added by Sasata who has since retired. I support the change and the creation of a template. My only suggestion is to drop the access date as unnecessary, as the cited content itself is static and the archive url is there in case the website changes. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 10:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Seems reasonable....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Marasmiellus candidus[edit]

Hi, I am revising the files uploaded for Wiki Science Competition 2017 and I have noticed these that I don't have a specific category for this files. Currently, in commons:Category:Marasmiellus there are three images of Marasmiellus candidus. Before I create the category, I just double check if this names are standard. Can I proceed?--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: Be careful. There are two species ([3] [4]) that have been referred to as Marasmiellus candidus. The name can only "legally" be used for Marasmiellus candidus (Fr.) Singer; the other is properly Hemimycena candida (Bres.) Singer. I think the photos are correctly identified, but I'm not positive (I'm better at the rules of taxonomy than I am at mushroom ID). I'm not quite sure where the name and authority Marasmiellus candidus (Bolton) Singer comes from, but there is a Agaricus candidus Bolton listed as a synonym of Marasmiellus candidus (Fr.) Singer. Plantdrew (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Well the only way i can be careful is doing nothing Plantdrew... it's not my field... The current categorization is not bad, although with three files a category could be better, but considering is only a little step, there is no point from my side to "force" it. From a practical point of view, I'll just create other categories somewhere else where I have no doubt. of course, if people here agree on a very simple clear task, i am available! Thank you BTW.--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello. The 3 photos all show Marasmiellus candidus (Fr.) Singer, which grows on twigs. Apparently Hemimycena candida (Bres.) Singer (which is the current name of the other one) grows on comfrey and has decurrent gills. I made a category for Marasmiellus candidus and moved the photos to it. I hope that is OK. Strobilomyces (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Great, Strobilomyces.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page[edit]

Chemical defense links to saprophytic, which is a DAB page. Could one of you experts help solve the problem? I wouldn't want to guess the answer. Narky Blert (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

List of poisonous fungus species[edit]

Hi everyone. I noticed that this article has no lead section. It also has no description of what a "suspicious mushroom species" is. Can you help with this? Thanks, Loooke (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


Wiki's current prothallus article says nothing about the lichen definition. In lichens, it's the area along the edge of a crustose thallus that contains no algae. It's typically a different color than the rest of the thallus, and can be important for distinguishing between similar species. I'm a bit loathe to add this to the current article, which is about a completely different subject, but I'm unsure where to link to otherwise. Any suggestions? MeegsC (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I say add it. There are a number of these terms used in 'lower taxa' that have slightly different meanings in each kingdom. just because ferns firsted it doesn't mean we should forget fungi. Plus Prothallium could easily be adjusted with just a few sentences in the opening and a new section on lichens. And then if it means something in phycology or whatever we're ready. Nessie (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


There was a disagreement at ERRORS today (maybe it's resolved to everyone's satisfaction, maybe it isn't) about the Main Page blurb on Today's Featured Article, Paxillus involutus. It's got 2 more hours on the Main Page so this is a little late to be discussing it, but any further thoughts are welcome. Pinging Casliber, who was one of the nominators of the article at FAC. He's been keeping an eye on it, and he responded at ERRORS. Cas's position seems to be the right one to me. - Dank (push to talk) 21:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


Please see the latest discussion at Talk:Sex, which proposes to restrict the scope of the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Amanita Smithiana.[edit]

subj Obviously, word smithiana is russian word smetana (сметана) which means sour cream. And it looks exactly like that. Smetanaсметана . In Russia this fungi is called "Smitannyy muhomor", where is smetana = sour cream, muh = fly, mor = mortal. Which means fungy that kills flys. Often people use it choped into water for flys to drink and be neutralized. It is funny that this gungi is named so in honor of Alexander Smith, as user Plantdrew said.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Corneroporus subcitrinus v. Boletopsis subcitrina[edit]

I would like to bring attention to this article's talk page, as there seems to be some confusion regarding the currency of Corneroporus. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved. Ypna (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for Assistance: Lecanora tartarea & Scottish Highland Dyes[edit]

The article Traditional dyes of the Scottish Highlands mentions Lecanora tartarea twice, but the article on 'Lecanora' makes no mention of it.

  • BTW - The text in Traditional dyes of the Scottish Highlands appears to have been copied more or less verbatim from Dwelly's entry dath, then formatted for Wiki.
  • The plant is mentioned in Edward Dwelly's Dictionary, Am Faclair Beag, online under
  • Please also see the Wiki article on "Orcein" in the subsection called Cudbear. The article mentions lichens, but not which lichens. (Except for Roccella tinctoria.)
  • Apparently Lecanora tartarea is also mentioned in Brewster, Sir David (1832). Lichen. The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia. Retrieved 10 May 2014.

I would add Lecanora tartarea to the list of species in the article on Lecanora, but after a cursory look at EoL & searching for synonyms, I suspect that it has either been overlooked in both EoL and Wikipedia, has been reclassified\renamed, or both.

From these articles, it looks as if Lecanora tartarea or this class of "Orchil lichens"\"orchella weeds" were once economically important, and I am very interested in finding out more about them. If possible, I would love for someone to help me identify this lichen or group of lichens, but sadly, lichens are outside of my area of expertise. Even a pointer to a name would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Thanks in advance.

Kibi78704 (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's a link to the MycoBank listing for the species Lecanora tartarea. As a lichen newbie who's just starting to write some lichen articles, I can tell you that there are a lot of missing lichen articles! ;) MeegsC (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
And I see it on the EoL list of Lecanora species, (though no species account has yet been written) so I think it's fine to add it. MeegsC (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC on categorizing by year of formal description[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description for a discussion on possible guidelines for categorizing by year of formal description of a species. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject[edit]

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.


On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Should the automatic taxobox system be the current recommended practice?[edit]

Please have a look at the new discussion at the Tree of Life project page as to whether we should change over from the manual {{taxobox}} to the automatic taxobox system. The comments so far are overwhelmingly in favour of recommending the automatic system. As I understand it this would apply to all taxa in the English Wikipedia.

Wikiproject Fungi is rather quiet, but I think we should document the implications for fungi here. If the recommendation is agreed and if there are no comments here, I may start to change some mushrooms over to the automatic system. I believe that in the past some attempt was made to use the automatic templates, but they were not popular (I don't really know why not).

The proposal is that the classification information will be held in template pages and one criticism will surely be that we should be more ambitious and hold that information in Wikidata. But doubtless that would lead to lots of extra problems (see this discussion).

For me the main problem is that just one classification has to be chosen at every level and there is no scope to express alternative possibilities (with the manual system one can mention different possibilities such as "Omphalotaceae or Marasmiaceae"). But the Wikipedia article names and text use a mixture of older and newer names. I think we need a rule to say how the taxon names in the taxoboxes should be chosen, without implying that this classification is necessarily right and the other ones wrong. The most practical rule would be "use the current names and classification tree in Species Fungorum". Unfortunately the genus names are changing very rapidly, but I do not see a real alternative. Of course older names should also be mentioned in the text and in redirect pages and Wikipedia will never be completely up to date - but it would be useful to have an agreement as to what we are aiming for.

I would be interested in all comments. Strobilomyces (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

See also this 2014 discussion. Improvements have been made to the automatic system since that time. Strobilomyces (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @Strobilomyces: for posting this. As you can see from the most recent stats WP Fungi has one of the lowest adoption rates for the Automated Taxobox System. I know there are some members of this project who are opposed to the new system and actively revert any changes back to manual taxoboxes. I hope that their concerns can be addressed here. I definitely support the automatic taxoboxes, even though they are not perfect and some sliver of articles do need manual boxes (like those using {{paraphyletic group}}, which has no automatic version). The vast majority would benefit from the change, and I think having us go through articles and putting another set of eyes on them for general fixes benefits the project.--Nessie (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
One issue, which may need to be a separate discussion, is that we have not been very consistent with teleomorph, anamorph and holomorphs, and as these now are all officially synonyms, we will need to sort all these genera out as many of the taxonomy templates used by the automated system will be |sameas= the accepted name.--Nessie (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I would like to record here this deleted discussion, where User:Polyporales argues against the automatic system. Strobilomyces (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The Nidulariaceae page still lists several genera of fungi that are now classified as belonging to the family Agaricaceae, in their own articles and elsewhere. Should this be rectified? Bacchae35 (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes - go for it! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

2018 set of major edits to articles on microfungi proposed for wiki edu project[edit]

For the past 5 years I have taught a 4th year undergraduate course in medical and veterinary mycology at the University of Toronto. Each year I have assigned my students to work on articles on biomedically important microfungi. To date we created or revised over 100 articles on microfungi. This year I am proposing the following taxa for us to work on. We won't get to all of these, but I'm hoping to do at least 28 or so. This list is based in part on the existing stub articles on microfungi that receive substantial page views in addition to a few taxa that I think urgently need an article. I invite anyone in this group who might be interested to review our articles to visit the wiki edu course page.

Medmyco (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


Hello editors of this project. I'm a Wikipedia new pages reviewer and I recently moved an editor's newly created article to draft space (see link). I've done some copy on the article as it was written by an ESL editor. What I really need is for an expert on fungus to confirm that the article doesn't exist elsewhere under a different name. The author previously wrote that they are "Astraeus_hygrometricus", however the description is very different as are the photos, so perhaps this is a different strain which merits an independent article. If this is indeed worthy of an independent article please let me know and I will fast track it to main space and take it off the the much beleaguered articles for creation list. Many thanks Edaham (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Fungi 'described in' decadal categories submitted to CfD[edit]

@ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 13#Category:Fungi described in the 1750s, per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  19:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Mycomorphbox-missing updated to populate[edit]

I gussied up the template Template:Mycomorphbox-missing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Now it populates Category:Missing mycomorphbox so we can track this and improve articles with {{Mycomorphbox}}es. --Nessie (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Plant to plant communication via mycorrhizal networks[edit]

Hi, I've come across this article Plant to plant communication via mycorrhizal networks on New Page Patrol, and looking for expert opinion on whether it constitutes OR, or is a valid article, or should be redirected to Mycorrhiza? Thoughts? Polyamorph (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Blumeria/Erysiphe graminis f.sp. confusion[edit]

I would like to bring attention to the apparent taxonomic confusion regarding Blumeria graminis (syn. Erysiphe graminis), Erysiphe graminis f.sp. tritici, and Erysiphe graminis f. sp. avenae. Ypna (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there a source on the synonymy? It's not cited in the articles. I'm assuming that's what you want to discuss here. If Erysiphe graminis is indeed a synonym for Blumeria graminis and is current with the 'one fungus one name' policy then I see no problem moving the formae specialis articles. --Nessie (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Stub "Fusidium" needs expanding[edit]

Fusidium, an important fungus used in the production of Fusidic acid, needs expanding. This bacterio-static compound is becoming more important in light of increasing MRSA infections and interest in the cultivation of the fungus its self is likely to grow. I can contribute whatever a google search on the subject will yield, but if anyone can supply verified reliable sources here it would be greatly appreciated. If an expert wants to just take it on directly and let me put my feet up, that would also be good. many thanks. Edaham (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Rfc on new classification scheme[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: new classification scheme for eukaryotes, which asks for comments on how we should deal with a proposed new classification system that has widespread ramifications across the tree of life. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates[edit]

Input sought At Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system#Fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates I've suggested some alternative ways of fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates. They could make it easier to deal with the problem of inconsistent classification systems, e.g. the ones used for birds and dinosaurs, or the ones used for mammals and dinosaurs. Be warned that it's a long post, but it very much needs input, particularly from "old hands" at using the automated taxobox system. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta[edit]

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Audiodude: does this bot just update the table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi#Article assessment? --Nessie (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@NessieVL: Basically yes. In fact, the new bot is just gathering the data for the table, while the old bot will continue generating the wikicode for the actual table and applying the update. Hope this helps. audiodude (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Phaeolepiota aurea[edit]

The current page on this taxon states: "Various cook books recommend the golden bootleg for its fine taste. Later studies have shown that the fruit body contains unacceptable amounts of both cadmium and cyanide compounds. Therefore, the mushroom is no longer considered edible. Cooking reduces the concentration of the cyanide compounds preset, which might be the reason Phaeolepiota aurea was considered edible in the past.[2]"

The reference given is a broken link to a WordPress blog. I have been searching for days, and cannot find any reference to cyanide or cadmium in Phaeolepiota, other than on sites that simply repeat what Wikipedia says, sometimes with the same broken link as a reference. A number of legitimate toxicology sites (e.g., the University of Adelaide's clinical toxicology site) note Phaeolepiota that has a tendency to cause GI upset. None mention cyanide.

A valid reference for the presence of "unacceptable amounts of both cadmium and cyanide compounds" in Phaeolepiota should be supplied, or the claim should be removed. Struvite (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The archived link cited in the article has three references you can check out. Also google scholar searches for "Phaeolepiota" cyanide has ten results and "Phaeolepiota" cadmium shows 17 results. Between those you'll likely find an answer. I would wager that the cadmium relates to how contaminated the soil is, though. --Nessie (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Does an unpublished analysis on a page that is no longer active count as a valid reference? None of the other references support the claim. Struvite (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, the article referred to was apparently published; if you search via Google Scholar, there are at least 3 citations of Stijve, T.; Andrey, D.; Goessler, W. (2002), "Phaeolepiota aurea:  A beautiful and mysterious mushroom", Mushroom, the Journal of Wild Mushrooming (77): 33−35. However, if you look at the journal's web page here, it doesn't seem to be a refereed scientific journal, so it doesn't meet the threshold for a reliable source. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)