Talk:Fairy ring

Size

• The article says they grow to 10 metres, but this article points to fairy rings grown to half a

kilometer wide:

http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/141_faeryrings.shtml

You are right fairy rings can grow up to hundreds of meters. Juan de Vojníkov 17:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think the explanation of the growing mechanism is wrong. "Since multiple spores of seperate fungi overlap..."? Come on. A fairy ring is a single organism growing under the ground from the inside out and building the visible mushrooms at the outside border.

You are not right in this case, cus fairy ring genet consist of more taxa. Juan de Vojníkov 17:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

---

This article ignores another less common type of fairy ring. a small perfectly cercular clearing within a forest or stand of trees. Such a clearing exists on my family's land in Tullamore, county Offaly Ireland. The story that goes with it is very similar to the folklore surrounding the mushroom rings. Its where the fairies meet/dance.

However it goes a bit further than that. Crossing though or standing in the fairy ring is generally ill advised and if one were to break a branch, stick, or remove anything from the circle it would be a very bad thing. There are numerous local stories about the ring. For example some people brought an empty coffin to the fairy ring and left it there over night. When it was checked on later one of the men was found dead, spread eagle, his mouth stuffed with leaves and branches where the coffin once was.

Where as the mushroom rings refer to a common physical phenomenon that has a link to folklore, the tree rings are almost completely bound to folklore. They are typically perminant locations (the one in Tullamore has supposedly existed for several thousand years) with very specific local stories and occurences linked to them. The tree circles are sufficiantly different and significant in the sense to folklore to mentioned in the article.

rforrestal at gmail dot com

You are right, lets implement your knoweledge into this article.Juan de Vojníkov 17:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

From what you say, it seems that the tree rings do not have any obvious cause, much less a fungal one. That sounds more like the phenomenon described in Fairy circle (Africa) which that article says is unexplained. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Eric

---

I seem to recall seeing an article about a fairy ring on salisbury plain that was several miles across, I'll have a look see if I can find it EdwardLane (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, yes please! Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

I replaced a dead link to http://www.uio.no/conferences/imc7/NFotm99/October99.htm via the wayback machine and my link works but I'm not sure I used the template correctly. Please check it if you have the relevant knowledge. It is this link under "External links":

• Marasmius oreades as Norwegian fungus of the month, with ring photographs at the Wayback Machine (archive index)

Random Passer-by 01:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Problematic statement

I disagree with a statment: The effects on the grass depend on the type of fungus that is growing, when Calvatia cyathiformis is growing in the area grass will grow more abundently however Clitocybe gigantea will cause the grass to wither.<ref>Böttcher, Helmuth M. ''Miracle Drugs'' William Henemann Ltd. London 1963 p. 227</ref> It is an old book. Refs should be based on scientific papers.--Juan de Vojníkov 16:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have a better reference that counters that statement, you can add it. -- Fyslee/talk 19:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

But I dont need to support the contrary idia via reference in this case. It is not my interest to cast doubt on not scientific paper. So I am going to remove this phrase, cus it could confuse people.--Juan de Vojníkov 14:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Your first statement seems to be a counterclaim and therefore needs referencing. The argument that the book is old isn't a valid argument. We write what we can source, and if we find better sources, then we use them. Do you have any better ones, especially that contradict this one? If not, it should stay. When you find something better, you're welcome to use it as a replacement. -- Fyslee/talk 15:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well. Thats a bad idea to "write what we can source". This is a misunderstanding of the Wikipedia policy to beet the quality. If you are referencing something it should be serious and first source. It seems to me, that you dont understand, why I dont need to contra-reference this statment. So I will add some references and I will go for RfC, with this article. --Juan de Vojníkov 17:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me the statement should stand. In my personal observations, fairy ring damage does vary with species. Furthermore, the age of the book doesn't matter if there is no refuting citation, and lastly WP actually prefers to cite secondary sources like books, rather than primary sources which tend to lead to novel synthesis. Debivort 16:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. That I didnt know about that "secondary references". But anyway both mushrooms can couse all two effects (withering/necrotic grass; abundantly grow), because this doesnt depend on taxa specifity, but mycelia physiology as the reaction to environmental conditions. I may find out some references, but those will not fight with this statement. But this is Wikipedia, thank you for your point.--Juan de Vojníkov 17:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The amount of damage done by a fairy ring is largely dependent on whether it gets it's nutrient from the lawn soil, and thereby competes for nutrients while passing on nitrogen (eg) as a byproduct and thereby causing rapid green growth in the spring with dead zones later in the year (as in Marasmius oreades ((Common Fairy Ring Mushroom)), or whether it is in a mycorrhizal association with a tree or shrub planted nearby, producing sporocarps in a ring around the tree at the leading edge of the tree/plant root system. As such, they are much more independant of the lawn's nutritional needs and so not nearly as damaging.

I realize it's more common to think of "fairy rings" as a ring of mushrooms arising from a saprophyte that often appears on lawns or way out in meadows, but the ones around trees have long been called such as well. They often appear so far out from the trunk that a partial ring or few caps wont be associated with a tree that they may be growing a full twenty or so feet away.--Mycos (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Idea for order of article

In some ways, this is such an unusual article we are free to play with order. I have a book which talks of the evolution of observation, with a link between folklore and modern, as it discusses Robert Plot and his observations in his 1686 book Naturall History of Stafordhire, where he mentions fairies and witches as a cause, yet digs up the soil and notes finding the ground:

much looser and dryer than ordinary, and the parts are interspersed with a white hoar or vinew much like that of mouldy bread, of a musty rancid smell, but to tast insipid, and this scarce anywhere above six inches deep, the earth again below being of its due consistence and genuin smell, agreeable to the rest of the soils thereabout

He later concludes lightning is the cause. Question is do we have a hsitory of scientific observation and where it goes. I did something similar in Sirius (now FA). Thoughts? Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have some notes on what early scientists thought, but it's not really in chronological order. Where would this information belong in the article? It should be somewhere, I think. — Dulcem (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are my notes on the subject:

Waldron not only ascribed them to the fairies, but said he had seen similar circles in the snow, in which the impressions of tiny feet were visible. (Ripley and Dana 402)

Aubrey supposed them to be caused by the efflux of a fertile subterranean vapor. Priestley and others considered them the effect of lightning; and Walter (Walker?), after a thunderstorm, observed one of them which from the color and brittleness of the bordering grass seemed to be newly burned bare. Others have thought them to be caused by moles or similar animals burrowing underground. Dr. Wollaston accounted for them by the growth of a species of agaric, which so absorbs all nutriment from the soil as for a time to destroy the herbage. Dr. Carpenter also thought them occasioned by masses of fungus vegetation. (Ripley and Dana 402)

Some suppose these circles to be made by ants, which are often found in great numbers in them. Messrs. Jessop and Walker, in the Philosophical Transactions, ascribe them to lightning; which is thought to be confirmed by their being most frequently produced after a storm of that kind, as well as by the color and brittleness of the grass roots when first observed. Lightning, like all other fires, moves round, and burns more in the extremity than in the middle; the second circle arises from the first, the grass burnt up growing very plentifully afterward. Mr. Cavalle, however, in his valuable Treatise on Electricity, does not think that lightning is concerned in the formation of them . . . . Other philosophers, who have exmined these circles, believe they are produced by a kind of fungus breaking and pulverising the soil. (London Encycl. 22)

Another modern writer, Mr. Wilson, ascribes fairy rings to the action of grubs, concealed under the ring among the roots of the herbage; and supposes, that the fungi give a preference to these rings, on account of the abundance of dead vegetable matter to be found in them. (London Encycl. 23)

Sources are both PD:

• "Fairy Circle, or Ring", The London Encyclopædia, or Universal Dictionary of Science, Art, Literature, and Practical Mechanics, Comprising a Popular View of the Present State of Knowledge, Vol IX. 1829. London: Thomas Tegg.
• Ripley, George, and Charles A. Dana, eds. (1864). "Fairy Circle", The New American Cyclopædia: A Popular Dictionary of General Knowledge, Vol. VII. New York City: D. Appleton and Company.

If we can figure out who these Mr. So-and-So's are, we might be able to draft a pretty informative paragraph or three on early theories. — Dulcem (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Celtic folklore

I've got quite a lot of information on fairy rings in Celtic folklore. A rough draft is in my sandbox. I wonder if a daughter article, fairy rings in Celtic folklore, is in order, with a summary for this page? — Dulcem (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yours is 13 kb long - I think the sceintific won't be much longer and 30 kb is minimum for a decent crack at FA. We can do the folklore up top, then segue into early science and modern stuff at bottom, as the folklore material is more prominent in this case I think. Have a play at rearranging as I am oopen to suggestions on it. Not hugely keen on a split. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My main concern was that the Celtic stuff will vastly outweigh the folklore from other regions. But we can give it a go, I think. The stuff in my sandbox is in rough-draft form, so I'll copy edit and consolidate references before I paste into here I think. — Dulcem (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see, never mind at the moment - look at the size of vampire which we got thru FAC...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, dumped! — Dulcem (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant, we can think about splitting if it gets much over 100kb. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

more celtic and Irish folklore

They is accounts of tractors flipping upside down when trying too destroy a fairy ring. They also have been road accidents resulting from roads being built on fairy rings. In Ireland fairy rings are surrounded by black hawthorn and white hawthorn. Walking into a fairy ring you won't get out unless you put what your wearing inside out as the faires won't recognise you. Its just folklore that I have been told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.86.53 (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - need some sources too, but I'll remember it when I (finally) go looking. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Fairy rings figure in folklore worldwide

Yet the entry describes only Western Europe - principally the British Isles.!184.145.94.21 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If you have come across any discussion referring to them elsewhere please add. We've been meaning to explore this topic for some time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Image: "possibly Chlorophyllum molybdites"

I think this looks more like the marasmius oreades. Karel Adriaan (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

They are too big - Chlorophyllum molybdites is a common lawn mushroom in Australia. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Galley-trap vs. Gallitrap

I'd really like if someone could find an appropriate reference to use for the spelling of "gallitrap", rather than "galley-trap." From a brief Google search, it seems that the spelling "gallitrap" is more commonly used than "galley-trap", the latter term possibly being a mis-spelling. Also, I can find no other sources that use the term "galley-trap". --UltimateKuriboh (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Conversion of remainder of citations to shortened footnotes & full citations

@Casliber, Dulcem, Andy Dingley, Malleus Fatuorum, and Sasata: Hi, you may have noticed from the recent article history that I have been putting the citations in the Sources section into citation template formats & adding or modifying parameters, especially by adding online sources (archive.org, books.google.com, hdl links, etc.). I have also been converting the plain author-date, author-page#, & author-date-page# footnotes to {{sfn}} (shortened footnotes) & {{harvnb}} (Harvard no brackets) so that those footnotes link to the full citations. In many cases, I added external links from the page number to the page from the online source.

You may also note that I proceed methodically, first by enhancing or creating the full citation, then by converting unlinked shortened footnotes to {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}}.

I am pinging you (all >5% either by amount of text added or by # of edits to this article) because now that I have done the obvious stuff, I would like to move onto the rest of the citations to convert them all to shortened footnotes in the Reference section & full citations in the Sources section. Pertinent links to documentation are:

• Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing (a bit of a misnomer, since one does not need to use parentheses)
• Wikipedia:Harvard citation template examples
• Help:Shortened footnotes
• Template:Harvard citation documentation
• Parenthetical referencing

You may wonder why I simply do not just be bold & plunge on ahead. Well, that is because of WP:CITEVAR, part of the citing sources content guideline, which states:

Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. The arbitration committee ruled in 2006:

Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

Hence, I am seeking out your advice as to my proceeding with my efforts to convert the rest of the references to full citations & shortened footnotes to arrive at a consistent look & formatting style. After that, I am wondering if we can work on having this reviewed for a better class. For this article, the current ORES predicted quality: FA (4.88); I think that we should at least be able to get a Good Article out of this.

Peaceray (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay - I have sporadically edited this page over 13 years and planned at some point to make take it to GA/FA. Will have a look at the referencing and figure on consistency. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Right, how I generally do it is to combine brevity and accuracy - so I make a cited texts subsection of references. In the cited texts segment go all items (almost always books) where I have used two or more distinct pages or pageranges. All else (including journal artciles, webpages and books with only one cited page or page range segment) go (fully formatted) into the references section. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I can work within the existing structure, but I do think that it is possible that we might get dinged for inconsistent citation style. I will continue to add to & improve citations. Peaceray (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I have used that plan for many FAs so far and no-one has complained yet. In what way are they inconsistent? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I recall complaints over what I thought to be a natural variability of citations in the good article review for Veterans Health Administration scandal of 2014. I will also note that some featured articles such as Ignaz Semmelweis exclusively use shortened footnotes, although I recognize that "because we do it there we should use it here" is a poor argument.

That said, you are the one with experience with moving things to featured article status, so I am happy to follow your lead. I have come across other articles that look like they could move to featured article status & would like to learn more about the process.

Peaceray (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay @Peaceray:, I started looking at the literature again after a long hiatus - there is rather alot on this and need to do some more reading to figure out where to go next. Regarding referencing I try to go for brevity and utility. The way I follow (if i am the primary editor) I don't see as a hybrid and only starts to get looking like this if we use alot of book.s I am open to other methods but hate the idea of automotically separating references into two largish sections so one is automatically jumping from the first to the second (i.e. by moving all fully written refs to a second section with pages in first). I started with featured (and later good) articles early on as I like them as a "stable version/reference point" to go back to in case of later article erosion (an I am fascinated what other mistakes others can see in one's work). This article needs some thinking about. The easiest articles to get through FAC are ones that are pretty narrow in scope. It does need alot of enthusiasm, so is there anything that is fairly narrow in scope you're really keen about? Meanwhile I will do some reading on this one but it might take some time. Sometimes I just feel "blocked" about an article for a while. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually @Peaceray:, the system I would change to (if it helped for consistency), is the one where all references are in one bloc, but the page ranges (where differing page ranges are used for different inline refs use) are used with a black superscript. I htink this is the most concise way of doing it, hwoever every time I think of this, I can't find an article where this is done so I give up...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I used to use the method of listing pages inline with the ref, but I have come to appreciate the shortened footnote because it encumbers the text left less. Shortened footnotes has become my favored method. One of the reasons is that I will often do an external link from the page to an online source when available, & I prefer to have those ELs occur in the reference section rather than than in the text. I also think that shortened footnotes & full citations give the article a cleaner look.

Some examples: I just came across this featured article, Siege of Berwick (1333), in the On this day section of the main page for July 20. It uses shortened footnotes & Harvard referencing exclusively, as do Bill Kibby & Patsy Mink, while Charles I of England almost exclusively uses shortened footnotes. Anton Chekhov, Zelda Fitzgerald, Ulysses S. Grant, The Negro Motorist Green Book, & ZETA (fusion reactor) are all FAs that use mixed citation styles, including shortened footnotes.

You asked other articles that I am interested in bringing up to FA; there are two that I think need some work, but could well become FA quality, Icarians & Oneida Community.

I will note that I am in the process of moving piecemeal, so my available time for the next couple of weeks is a bit uneven.

Peaceray (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Heh, I understand - had to do boring adulting stuff (taxes) which has eaten spare time in past few months. Dumb question, why do you like encumbering text to the left? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a late night typo or mistaken auto-correct. Struck through & corrected. It should have been "less". Peaceray (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)