This template is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Mrjulesd-2016-12-27T16:58:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Should_Microsporidia_be_included?-2016-12-27T16:58:00.000Z","replies":["c-Mrjulesd-2016-12-27T16:58:00.000Z-Should_Microsporidia_be_included?"],"text":"Should Microsporidia be included?","linkableTitle":"Should Microsporidia be included?"}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Mrjulesd-2016-12-27T16:58:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Should_Microsporidia_be_included?-2016-12-27T16:58:00.000Z","replies":["c-Mrjulesd-2016-12-27T16:58:00.000Z-Should_Microsporidia_be_included?"],"text":"Should Microsporidia be included?","linkableTitle":"Should Microsporidia be included?"}-->
Should Microsporidia be included? I personally think that this template should be restricted to the "true fungi" or eumycota, rather than Holomycota type organisms. They certainly aren't included in traditional phyla, and phylogenetics tend to put them in groups like the Opisthosporidia. They are already included in the Template:Opisthokont protists as distinct from true fungi. Any thoughts on this? --Jules(Mrjulesd)16:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-12-27T16:58:00.000Z","author":"Mrjulesd","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mrjulesd-2016-12-27T16:58:00.000Z-Should_Microsporidia_be_included?","replies":[],"displayName":"--Jules"}}-->