Talk:List of Russula species

I notice that some of these are listed as choice edibles in the list but the article lists them as edible. Can anyone verify these? I have changed some of those correspondingly, such as russula cyanoxantha but they need to be checked. Thebestofall007 (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russula mustelina Fr.?

In Italy this species is fairly common. It should even have a synonym as Russula fulva Blum (in the german wp they cite another synonym: R. elephantina Fr.). I don't find references to it in Rogers Mushroom nor in mushroomexpert.com, and it is very rarely cited in english sources. Why is this? Is someone enough confident about Russula species to add a new voice in wp and a link to this species in this page? -- Pietro Toniolo (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list, like many other things on Wikipedia, is quite incomplete; you are welcome to be bold and add it yourself. MycoBank and Index Fungorum consider it a valid species. Sasata (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Russula species. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517084517/http://www.rogersmushrooms.com/gallery/DisplayBlock~bid~5684~gid~.asp to http://www.rogersmushrooms.com/gallery/DisplayBlock~bid~5684~gid~.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning of the emoticons next to some of the species?

There’s no apparent reason for them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7480:95F0:6077:822C:9BDC:2707 (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

"The genus has a widespread distribution, and contains about 750 species. This article specifically lists 1,295 species." without counting them all on my iPhone...should we just cut the "750 species" ? I'm not a mushroom pro but the phrasing seems confusing to the general reader. Please advise. jengod (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Over 1000 red links in this article

I did a check and found 30+ red links that are 14 years old, and then 300+ red links that are 11 years old. And fast forward to 2024 and now there are over 1000 red links. Per WP:REDLINK - Add red links to articles to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. Red links help Wikipedia grow.

The argument is not whether "an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable", but rather how is created soon defined, and also, is over 1000 red links an excessive amount. There is no clear guidance at REDLINK for how created soon is defined. I don't think the length of time for created soon should be defined as 14 years or 11 years, and over 1000 red links is definitely excessive. Placing the article in Category:Wikipedia red link cleanup is a good thing, as it will alert patrolling editors so they can add their talent to improve this article by helping Wikipedia grow with new articles.

Constructive criticism given in a civil, respectful manner is a vital part in a collaborative project like Wikipedia, and it should be welcomed rather than discouraged. I propose that we should reduce the amount of red links to around 100~200, and work on creating those articles, and see how that goes, and then add more red links accordingly, so there is not an excessive amount, and they can be managed more effectively. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Isaidnoway, what is the maintenance that the tag suggests is needed? And how are you proposing to reduce the amount of red links in the article to a lower number? Are you suggesting to de-link the other 800+ species names? Loopy30 (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This topic was discussed recentlty at the ToL talkpages here. Per WP:REDLINK - Add red links to articles to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. Red links help Wikipedia grow. All of these redlinks are on notable topics that should be created for the encyclopaedia. Esculenta (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red links help Wikipedia grow. Sure, so adding this article to a category to where it will alert other editors so they can help with creating these notable and verifiable articles, is a good thing, is it not? Isaidnoway (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]