Talk:Agaricus albolutescens

Section order

@Esculenta: Hello, I was wondering if you'd mind explaining your basis for moving the Taxonomy section back to the top. (I totally get that it's been done that way on a number of articles!) However, the well-structured WP:Plants/Template is a good reference point since both mycology and plants cover essentially the same topics, with no clear reason to divert from it, per MOS:SNO. (I don't know of a fungi project template that would override the very satisfactory template for plant taxa). UpdateNerd (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It was decided informally a long time ago at WP:FUNGI that the ideal formatting for fungus taxa is to have taxonomy first, as this section typically does not have images, while the description section quite often does have images. If the image-containing description section comes first, it results in an awkward image squeeze (because of the right-side taxobox, which often has a synonymy section that makes it extend downwards, and often a right-side mycomorphbox), whereas if the image-less taxonomy comes first, the article tends to not have this problem. This rule of thumb was figured out years ago when many fungal taxon articles were being put through GA and FA. You're correct that WP:Fungi doesn't have a template (but it should, and it's now on my to-do list), although the sub-project WP:LICHENS does have an article template (with taxonomy before description). Esculenta (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok, that's good to know there was some discussion. Although image crowding is definitely to be avoided, galleries can force images to the bottom and don't need to be text-wrapped. The problem and related solution(s) would seem to apply equally to both plant and fungi articles, so maybe I'll bring it up on the project talk pages. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Might want to note that the suggested Plants/Template section order (which, as the template notes "is only a suggestion") is not universally followed by plant articles at FA and GA, so I guess other editors saw a reason to divert from it. Esculenta (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Esculenta: I've thought about this and come up with some ideas, in case you have any thoughts before I hit the project pages. It occurred to me that the first sentence of most species articles say what family they belong to—i.e. summarize their taxonomy. (Some articles also dump a lot of common names here, but I realized while editing plant article Achillea millefolium that this can be circumvented.) Working on fungi article Agaricus bernardii I found that putting Taxonomy first can be made more palatable by simple tightening, e.g. using subsections.

The best solution for consistency seems to be to put Taxonomy first on plant articles as well (with that community's consensus, of course). One concern is forcing causal readers to skip through a (sometimes long) section of specialized information, but tight copyediting, splitting off into appropriate list articles, etc., hypothetically alleviates this. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Putting subsections in taxonomy sections is normal (if there's enough material); sometimes the "Taxonomy" section is titled "Systematics", with subsections like "Historical taxonomy", "Phylogenetics", "Etymology", etc. You say the "best" solution would be to put Taxonomy sections in plant articles first. Why? Why not suggest in the plant article template that typically, either the taxonomy or description section is put first, and use the method that best suits the article you're working on? You say it's a concern to have casual readers "forced to" skip through a section. Is this really a concern that they have to spend a microsecond to roll the scroll wheel down to where they want? And I should add, as a "casual reader" of plant articles, to me, often the description is a (sometimes long) section of specialized information, whereas I can understand the taxonomy section of any taxon article without a problem. Esculenta (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess there's no rule about section order per MOS:SNO, so as you say it can depend on what makes sense for each article. Probably putting whichever is easier to read first makes sense, along with image crowding concerns. The plant template isn't an enforced guideline so I don't think it's currently necessary to raise at the project level. Thanks for your input. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)