Talk:Russula virescens

Russula virescens is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 6, 2016.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 16, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
June 8, 2013	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Fungi Mid‑importance

	Fungi portal This article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and drink Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles 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.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Amanita phalloides

In the edibility section of Russula virescens, I think it's important to include the simple assertion that the quite poisonous Amanita phalloides is inedible, most notably because it is in the edibility section. Does anyone object to using the word 'inedible' in this instance? I'd very much like to keep it in the article as worded, with consensus; also, if in lieu of prose per the GA review. Thx.-- Rcej (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

calling A. phalloides inedible is an understatement to the point it is inaccurate, like calling travelling in Afghanistan as 'not entirely safe' - I'd say 'highly toxic' is a better describer to use.. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. If the main point of using the word 'inedible' was to describe Amanita phalloides, then I see what you mean; but in the particular sentence where its used, it is there just within the context of the sentence. Understating the obvious will often be used in a sentence that is meant to be understood in a direct, 'matter-of-fact' manner.-- Rcej (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is stating that the poisonous fungus is inedible is unnecessary, needless and probably even misleading. Mushrooms which do not qualify as edible are all inedible, whether that be due to toxicity, inferior size and quality or irritating the senses, but "inedible" does not indicate the danger we want to associate A. phalloides with. Also, characterising a fungus as inedible has a certain degree of opinion associated with it, whereas "dangerously poisonous" means just what it is. Whoever consumes it is surely in danger. It's acceptable to include A. phalloides in a list of inedible (not edible) lookalikes where it is specified that consumption of this particular one poses a threat.--Paffka (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is A. phalloides inedible? In the article, notice how 'inedible' is merely written in passing? Regardless, there comes a point when ambiguity loses; a mushroom is either edible or inedible... it can't be neither. I do agree, though, that it is unnecessary to define a poison mushroom as inedible; but I was not doing that. I used inedible because it works well in the sentence, and it is also true of a poisonous mushroom. I will abide by consensus, however, and remove it.-- Rcej (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carluccio

He also says that it is commonly sold in markets in Spain (didn't add it as markets would be mentioned in two different spots). He also says that he's never paid much attention to Russulas as a genus but with this one he might have to study them more.....I'll check the other books. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Russula virescens. 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/20131220125959/http://www.rogersmushrooms.com/gallery/DisplayBlock~bid~6085.asp to http://www.rogersmushrooms.com/gallery/DisplayBlock~bid~6085.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) 17:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]