User talk:Esculenta
Precious anniversary
[edit] | |
| Four years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Erysiphe azerbaijanica
[edit]Hi Esculenta!
With regards to Erysiphe azerbaijanica, I was just wondering why you want to define the references in a template rather than at their citations, and why the Taxonomy section needs to be placed above the Description section in the opposite way to all other articles on the family? Also Catalogue of Life is not really the best source to use, even just for the opening statement (which doesn't necessarily need a source), although I get the idea.
Thanks!
P.S. I do understand fully how defining references at the end can make an article neater, especially with source editing, however with short articles I find defining them when they are cited means they can be edited visually, which helps. I suppose this one is a matter of personal preference :) Alexoutside (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- The advantages of list-defined refs are explained here. Taxonomy is placed above description in most fungus articles, so the new set powdery mildew articles are an aberration from the fungus norm. If articles don't have a minimum of two citations, they are subject to the annoying but true {{one source}} template, so a CoL citation is an easy way to "confirm" that the taxon has been considered and accepted by an outside source, and keeps the "one source" templaters at bay. Although CoL isn't the perfect taxonomic source (there aren't any), it seems to be reasonably well-maintained and updated, and I don't know of any other "general" fungal taxonomy database that's better. Esculenta (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- Interesting, thanks! Do you know why taxonomy is placed first? Wouldn't most people be more interested in the species' identification than taxonomy and history? Just a thought though :) Most plant parasitic fungi don't even have different sections for description and taxonomy yet (lots of work to do!). Across the fungal articles I've seen both styles of indicating the year of a description of a species with the author attribution (or not), is there a reason why you prefer the one with brackets? Alexoutside (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- It dates back to when the Fungus Wikiproject was actively taking mushroom species to WP:FAC, and it was realized that trying to fit in images into a description section often causes image squeezing when there's a taxobox (and, in the case of mushroom articles, a mycomorphbox) on the right-hand side of the screen. The simple solution was to put the taxonomy section first (there's usually not any images for this section) to make later image placement easier. FACs and GAs (Good Articles) tend to be a "template" for further new taxon articles, so the revised section placements sort of filtered down throughout the project. Same thing with the year in parentheses; it's a formatting quirk that was started early in the fungus wikiproject and promulgated down with time. I don't have any particular preference for this format other than it's the way it's done for most other fungus taxon articles (and that the year is displayed, contrary to the preference at the WP:Plants Wikiproject). Esculenta (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for all the information! I think in my future powdery mildew species articles, I'll keep the Description then Taxonomy sections in that order - we hardly have any photos of many of these species at all anyway! Plus if there is one it can go in the Speciesbox. Happy editing! (and naturalisting - do you find many of these species yourself?) Alexoutside (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- I'm more of a lichen guy these days (makes it way easier to find specimens at all times of the year), but I do have a powdery mildew currently growing on the melon plants in the garden that I think is probably Podosphaera xanthii! Esculenta (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for all the information! I think in my future powdery mildew species articles, I'll keep the Description then Taxonomy sections in that order - we hardly have any photos of many of these species at all anyway! Plus if there is one it can go in the Speciesbox. Happy editing! (and naturalisting - do you find many of these species yourself?) Alexoutside (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- It dates back to when the Fungus Wikiproject was actively taking mushroom species to WP:FAC, and it was realized that trying to fit in images into a description section often causes image squeezing when there's a taxobox (and, in the case of mushroom articles, a mycomorphbox) on the right-hand side of the screen. The simple solution was to put the taxonomy section first (there's usually not any images for this section) to make later image placement easier. FACs and GAs (Good Articles) tend to be a "template" for further new taxon articles, so the revised section placements sort of filtered down throughout the project. Same thing with the year in parentheses; it's a formatting quirk that was started early in the fungus wikiproject and promulgated down with time. I don't have any particular preference for this format other than it's the way it's done for most other fungus taxon articles (and that the year is displayed, contrary to the preference at the WP:Plants Wikiproject). Esculenta (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- Interesting, thanks! Do you know why taxonomy is placed first? Wouldn't most people be more interested in the species' identification than taxonomy and history? Just a thought though :) Most plant parasitic fungi don't even have different sections for description and taxonomy yet (lots of work to do!). Across the fungal articles I've seen both styles of indicating the year of a description of a species with the author attribution (or not), is there a reason why you prefer the one with brackets? Alexoutside (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2025 (UTC)