Talk:List of fungi of South Africa

Splitting

I'm leaving a note here for myself (or anybody else) to split the article A-L and M-Z. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It will have to be split more than that, and one task is to identify and split out the taxa that are no longer considered Fungi, like slime moulds, into a separate list or lists. There is also the issue of identifying current names for most of the species, and inserting them where appropriate. I am not sure which should come first. There will also be more taxa to add from more recent compilations, but that is a different problem. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This article seems to be incomplete however, and it says that it is in need of major restructuring. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: I want to let you know that I've moved this into your user space for further editing before it appears in article space. Much (most?) of the article is hidden away which is preventing the article being split at this stage. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip So I see. I would be interested to know why it was so urgent, and which policy or guidance you were following to do this without discussing it first. Also I do not see how the commented out sections stop one from splitting. Did you open the article in the edit window? I have been here long enough to understand that you mean no harm, but a newer editor might be offended. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding, I most certainly do not mean any offence. I attempted to split the article into two halves, but I found that there would not be enough visible content to justify at least one of the split articles. The article in its present state is very clearly a draft, and isn't ready to be published in accordance with our draft policies. Wikipedia policy and practice on size and accessibility are also relevant, as this would have been the largest article on Wikipedia without being split. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip The reason for commenting out the sections was primarily to avoid timeout on rendering templates, and secondarily to speed up save time on my currently somewhat slow connection. I had just finished the initial listing from the primary source when you made the move. When the article has been split into small enough components the commenting out will no longer be necessary and can be simply removed to make each section fully visible again. No rocket science. I was undecided as to whether to further refine the contents or split first, but you move has prompted me to decide that splitting is more urgent, and the other refinements can be done later, even if they make it necessary to revise the split divisions. Feel welcome to suggest practicable improvements, and to communicate with editors before making startling changes. I will therefore move the article back to mainspace and start splitting when I am ready. If you have any suggestions as to how best to integrate what will be a small cluster of articles using a common table of contents, please let me know. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Basic splitting done. The largest split out section List of fungi of South Africa – P, is now larger than the remaining content. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, I have looked for a policy allowing the draftification of the article in the state in which it was when you did the move, but have not been able to find anything. I have probably been looking in the wrong place. I assume you are more familiar with the specific policy as you would have followed it. Would you be so kind as to provide links to the policy or policies which recommend or allow this move? Please section link to the actual text which authorises the action and specify which conditions applied at the time.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Blubabluba9990 I see your comment, and while it is basically correct, I am not sure of what point you wish to make. Could you clarify? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I meant that this page was a work in progress. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 18:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

That can be said of all Wikipedia articles. Sometimes we use an {{Under construction}}, or an {{In use}} template to draw attention to actual active work in progress. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Further splitting may be necessary or desirable at some stage, but I don't think yet. Willing to consider it if for good reasons. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Current names

Many taxa will have had name changes since 1950. I plan to go through the list systematically and compare with Index Fungorum and Sp. Fungorum. If anyone has an alternative suggestion, please explain below. The original list is from Doidge 1950, there will be others since then. Please add them in the same format as far as possible. [[reported name]] auth. date,<ref name="" /> accepted as [[current name]] auth. date

The names listed are the names as reported, please follow this precedent or discuss any proposed change first. Each taxon with a changed name should also be listed as [[current name]] auth. date, reported as [[old name]] auth. date<ref name="" />. in the appropriate place in the lists.

I will probably try to standardise on style used in Index Fungorum as that will be less work for me. Please do not change style to something else without discussion. If there is an accepted Wikipedia/WikiProject house style, I am OK as long as it can be proved. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)