Talk:Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cubense

A fact from Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cubense appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 January 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a wilt disease, Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cubense, could cause America's favorite fruit, the Cavendish banana (pictured), to become commercially unavailable?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/January.

Wikipedia

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Musa (genus)#Banana and plantain cultivar naming|banana cultivars]] The anchor (#Banana and plantain cultivar naming) has been deleted by other users before.
{{section link||Race 1}}
{{section link||Race 2}}
{{section link||Race 3}}
{{section link||Race 5}}
{{Slink||R1}}

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Suggestions

Suggestions: -Article should address factors indicating why the culinary variety of banana and other species are so susceptible to F. oxysporum f. sp. cubense. "Why don't we just make another banana?" -Should introduce possible resources for new varieties of bananas, made by breeders and plant geneticists, that are resistant to F. oxysporum f. sp. cubense and why those may or may not be able to replace the cavendish banana. -Article need to discuss what evolutionary biologists have been doing to tackle the problem in reference to finding common ancestors of F. oxysporum and how this may shed light on pathways of infection and ways to halt the fungi's destructive tendencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzalez.329 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the article also implies that Musa balbisiana is not only the sole ancestor of modern bananas and the only seeded banana - both assumptions are simply false. --DrAzF (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pages variable in cite journal

Hi @Trappist the monk: About this edit: How should the |pages=iv+117 have been done? It's 4 pre-pages and another 117 pages, and I know it looks funny but that's what it says. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That form (pp. iv+117) is a variant of what CABI Invasive Species Compendium shows (vi + 117 pp.) which is a bibliographic shorthand way of saying that the paper in its entirety has four pages of front matter and 117 pages of the paper proper. The purpose of citations at en.wiki is to help readers verify our content by indicating where in source content we got the information and to do it as specifically as possible. To my mind, making readers search 121 pages for the information that supports six sentences of our content, is sufficiently punitive that it ultimately does readers a severe disservice.

So, were it me, I would use individual page numbers. I would write as many separate citation templates as are required to do that. I would consider using short-form referencing if it makes sense to do so.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Large text transfer to Panama disease

I have moved most of this article's text to Panama disease because it did not pertain to the species but instead to the manifestation. Invasive Spices (talk) 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The term 'Fusarium Wilt' is now preferred to 'Panama Disease'. I believe a new phylogenetic study will be published shortly providing more evidence for monophyly of TR4 lineages and hence supporting the move toward renaming this lineage as F. odoratissimum. Until then the old name F. oxysporum f.sp. cubense should be retained --Bebber (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]