Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi/Archive 1

WikiProject Fungi
The current coverage of fungi in Wikipedia is very poor; one reason for this, in my opinion, is the uncertainty over naming and classification (and the lack of English names). The German, Dutch and French Wikipedias are better. This project could improve matters a lot, especially if it establishes guidelines on the taxonomy, preferred names, whether to mention authors/authorities, the use of categories, etc. It is essential to remember that there are many alternative naming/classification possibilities, and I suppose Wikipedia must cover all the main ones. The model articles, such as Psilocybe, are useful too. Good luck! Strobilomyces 20:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I should be able to lend a hand. While not formally a mycologist by any means, I have had quite a bit of amateur background in the field and have access to a reasonable diverse reference library on the topic.  I hotfixed Inocybe from work with minimal access to sources in order to correct a terribly unencyclopediac entry, but I'll revise it with better documentation and a taxobox shortly.  I'm not sure where we want to draw the line regarding inclusiveness, but I should be able to get up an article styled after Galerina on most of the significant North American genera in the next few weeks.Serpent&#39;s Choice 07:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work on the Inocybe article and thanks in advance for the contributions you are planning on. The Galerina article is a good model. (I say with all due modesty, since I largely wrote it.) Another approach would be like the article I just wrote on Hygrophoraceae (it probably needs more fleshing out, but its a good start). Some articles of this type, covering the major mushroom families with basic descriptions of the major genera within them, followed by full articles on these genera once enough material has been written about them, is another way of breaking down this large task. (Of course, the concept of mushroom families is in a state of flux right now, but some pretty clearly defined clades are being established through multiple studies.)Peter G Werner 18:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive: Fungus
Imagine my surprise when I came across this:

I encourage anybody who's interested in this project to help out in working on the "Fungus" article this week. I'll certainly be doing so. Peter G Werner 02:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Identification
Can anyone identify any of these fungi? The following were all taken in Mexico, details are listed. I know the chances are rather slim considering lack of depth of field, good angle, bad resolution, or degraded state of the fruiting body on most of these, but I thought maybe a few could be pinned down to at least a genus or something. Thanks! --NoahElhardt 00:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, even though Wikipedia isn't the right kind of forum for this kind of thing (there are LiveJournal communities where this is more appropriate), I'll take a shot at some ID down to genus level – 1 & 5: Cortinarius (or perhaps Rozites), 2: Boletus, 3 & 4: Russula, 7:Amanita or Macrolepiota or Chlorophyllum, 8: Hericium, 10: Polyporus, 11: Tremella or Dacrymyces. Taking a "journey to Ixtlan" to look for mushrooms I see. ; ) Peter G Werner 03:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Well, Wikipedia may not be meant exactly for this purpose, but I uploaded (and took) the images in the hopes that they might help illustrate the appropriate articles. Once they are identified, I can apply them thusly.
 * Not quite a journey to see mushrooms... more a journey to see plants (Pinguicula in particular), but I do share a fond spot for mushrooms and couldn't resist snapping a few on the way. :) Thanks for the help. --NoahElhardt 05:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For future reference the Mushroom Observer Website is designed to help people identify mushrooms as well as record observations and images about mushrooms. Nathan Wilson 05:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Noah takes a large variety of excellent photographs. I would hesitate to ask him to go anywhere else to get them identified.  KP Botany19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. As Peter mentioned, Wikipedia is not the right forum for identifying unknowns.  The Mushroom Observer Website is very much in the same spirit as Wikipedia (open content licenses, open source etc.) and is exactly intended for the purpose of helping people identify unknowns.  Admittedly I'm biased since I'm the primary architect, but as such, I can also tell you that I am currently working on connecting the system with Wikipedia so that the two systems can hopefully cross-fertilize.  I expect that some contributors to Mushroom Observer will contribute to Wikipedia, and I hope the site can provide a good source for images for future Wikipedia articles.  At the moment the images can't be automatically used since I only require that people put their images under a non-commercial CC license.  However, I have plans to support more varieties of licenses and am hoping to make the default compatible with Wikipedia.  The website already gives you an easy way to send email to the person who added the image to the site to request permission to use the images for other purposes. Nathan Wilson 04:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussion of article edits, Wikipedia projects, etc. They aren't discussion boards in the regular sense. On the other hand Mushroom Observer is an excellent resource and I'd encourage people to use it. Peter G Werner 22:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Improvements with Layout of Mushroom pages
We should set up a style that we recommend for mushrooms pages. Right now they do not seem to follow any layout. Any ideas and/or comments?RSIferd 00:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there any style guide that makes recommendations for layout of Wikipedia articles in general? That would be a good place to start. Peter G Werner 02:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have been reading the wikipedia guidlines and they have helped some. I think that it should be in a format like
 * Lead Section this is the section that will introduce the topic. It should be an overview of the Genus/species. If there is ::something below (aside from "see also" and below that) that can be said in just a sentence, then try to include it here rather than ::creating it's own section.


 * Identification
 * If there is something special about identification that is a good paragraph, add it here. If there are several subtopics like
 * Microscopic
 * Interesting identification ideas for things like spores and hyphae
 * Macroscopic
 * For things like gills, spore print, substrate, color, ect.
 * Other
 * if there's anything else
 * List of Species
 * This is obviously for genus articles only (I have added rough geographic loactions and common names to species lists on genus articles. Could also add toxicity icon (used in mycomorphboxes) too)Cas Liber 01:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Toxicology
 * Anything notable about toxicology including treatment methods if poisonis
 * See Also
 * other related wikipedia articles
 * Further Reading
 * if there is a good book/article on topic
 * References
 * Any referance material
 * External Links
 * Other sites with helpful information
 * If there is something else notable about the mushroom, like history or whatever then it should then have it's own section too. But I think that if we try to reformat the articles like this when we can it would greatly increase readability.
 * Does this sound good? Any changes or other ideas... I am ganna try to make a subpasge for this because it seems like it may take up a lot of room, lol.RSIferd 14:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I tried to set Russula up in that format. Check it out and see how ya'll like it.71.79.241.58 18:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ascomycota taxonomy
Um, yikes.

The taxobox doesn't even seem to know how we're going to view the taxonomy. Neither of the two options in the box is the one I am familiar with, either--(somewhat abbreviated for the purpose of discussion).

Class Ascomycetes Subclasses: Arthoniomycetidae, Chaetothyriomycetidae, Dothideomycetidae, Erysiphomycetidae, Eurotiomycetidae, Laboulbeniomycetidae, Lecanoromycetidae, Leotiomycetidae (Order Heliotales [Family Ascocorticiaceae, Bulgariaceae, Cudoniaceae, Cyttariaceae, Dermateaceae, Geoglossaceae, Heliotaceae, Hemiphacidiaceae, Hyaloscyphaceae, Leotiaceae, Loramycetaceae, Phacidiaceae, Rustroemiaceae, Sclerotiniaceae, Vibrisseaceae]), Meliomycetidae, Sordariomycetidae, Spathulosporomycetidae, Pezizomycetidae (Order Pezizales [Family Ascobolaceae, Ascodesmidaceae, Carbomycetaceae, Discinaceae, Glaziellaceae, Helvellaceae, Karstenellaceae, Morchellaceae, Pezizaceae, Pyrenemataceae, Rhizinaceae, Sarcoscyphaceae, Sarcosomataceae, Terfeziaceae, Tuberaceae]) Class Neolectomycetes Class Pneumocystidomycetes Class Saccharomycetes Class Schizosaccharomycetes Class Taphrinomycetes

Has this been supplanted somewhere since 2001? Serpent&#39;s Choice 04:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On the level of cladistics, yes – there was a major molecular phylogeny of the Ascomycetes published by Lutzoni last year. I'm not sure if it resulted in new names being published, though. Peter G Werner 02:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, with the basidiomycetes, we are currently splitting the jellies off at the class level, while Ainsworth and Bisby maintained the single class Basidiomycetes and differentiated at the subclass level with Tremellomycetidae for the jellies and kin and Agaricomycetidae for, well, everything else. Systema Naturae (admittedly flawed in places) seems to (mostly) agree with both of the above arrangements, but I'm not willing to be that bold without some consensus. It is a big change. Serpent&#39;s Choice 04:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean Systema Naturae 2000 and not Linneus' Systema Naturae, correct? The latter is way out of date, to put it mildly. Peter G Werner 03:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Collaborations?
A couple of articles have the prerequisites to become Featured Articles, I reckon. How's about Amanita muscaria and Agaricus bisporus for starters? What do others think? Cas Liber 00:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Button mushroom article needs a lot of additional material and re-editing before its ready. The Amanita muscaria article is in better shape, but still needs a little rewriting and fact checking, and more importantly, needs citation of source material before its ready for featured article status. At the risk of self-promoting, the Psilocybe article is also in good shape, but still needs some additional material, and again lots of citations which are presently lacking. Peter G Werner 02:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Self-promoting is OK. Had more of a look around and got into some collaborating on Amanita muscaria and a tiny bit on Button mushroom. OK here is the beginnings of a list of articles which have the potential to be featured...Feel free to move up or down as seen fitCas Liber 06:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Very rough

 * Button mushroom (aka Agaricus bisporus)
 * Destroying angel (aka Amanita virosa and bisporiga)

Rough

 * Amanita phalloides
 * Gyromitra esculenta
 * Boletus edulis

Getting there...(due or recently had Peer Review)

 * Amanita muscaria
 * Psilocybe (the citations should be readily doable)

Good articles (has been designated WP:GA)

 * Galerina
 * Myco-heterotrophy

Featured Article Candidates
none

Featured Articles
none

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regardingassessment, peer review, and collaborationare included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wildlife Barnstar
There is currently a barnstar proposal at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals for a barnstar which would be available for use for this project. Please feel free to visit the page and make any comments you see fit. Badbilltucker 15:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)