This article is within the scope of WikiProject Basque, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Basque Country, Basque people, Basque language, history and culture 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.BasqueWikipedia:WikiProject BasqueTemplate:WikiProject BasqueBasque articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
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
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
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.
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The article is a bit confusing because it jumps between the aereus and reginus latin names. It should describe in the beginning which is the right name and why and then stick to the right name throught out the rest of the article.174.6.130.25 (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)BeeCierReply
Added a bit. Hold on for a bit with the GA nom and I'll go through it with a fine-tooth comb (I still have a bit of material to add too). Sasata (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi guys, the reference to B. aereus occurring in China is erroneous. This is clearly pre-dating recent molecular work and has been revised by Dentinger et al. who showed B. aereus to have a strictly European-North African distribution.
Boletus edulis is the only Boletus sensu stricto with a widespread holarctic distribution. Acc. to Dentinger B. aereus is restricted to Europe (mostly the Med) and North Africa. It may be present in Israel, i'll check for references. The Chinese porcini are still undescribed as far as i know... but my guess is not for long.
"described Boletus aereus as le bolet bronzé in 1789" Makes it seem as if the latter is a scientific name as well, though it appears to be a French common name? So isn't it more appropriate to list the name under common names?
"had been sanctioned in 1821" Could it be very briefly explained what this means? I know there's a link, but understanding the subsequent text seems to require that one has read the other article.
It seems the species was moved out of Boletus at one point, but when was it moved back?
Regarding genus name, several authorities up until the 1930s used other genus names but they all fell just out of favour rather than there being a concrete move back to Boletus, so not sure what to do about that.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
"established them as a separate species, Boletus regineus." But is it not considered closely related either?
regineus is not closely related to aereus - I added "and belong on a different porcini lineage." They are in a clade with Boletus pinophilus and 3 other North American species. Thought it would be too off-topic to go into too much detial here.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
"but this taxon is not considered to have independent taxonomic significance." As in it's not considered distinct? Couldn't it be worded simpler?
The website link to the taxobox image doesn't seem to work properly anymore. Perhaps it could be refound? Also, it appears permission to use it was given through email, though there is no OTRS confirmation. During a FAC, that might prove problematic.
"has a robust and pleasant smell reminiscent of hazelnuts, and a mild sweet taste." Not sure what is done in other articles about edible mushrooms, but isn't this info more relevant under edibility?
I didn't add that so unsure of which of those sources it came from..could easily be argued they are general descriptitve traits. I always put smell in this section and taste is often either way.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
"likely suggesting an ecological variant or subspecies rather than a distinct species.[10]" Isn't this info more relevant under taxonomy then?
Unique info in the intro is a pet peeve of mine (it should be a summary of the article), so I always read the into last during reviews, to see if anything new pops up.
Changes look good, though it is a bit hard to see what is considered done or not, when the responses are "disjointed" from the suggestions... FunkMonk (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Last point then, you say "The ectomycorrhizae that B. aereus forms with Castanea sativa has been described in detail", without explaining anything, it seems like a bit of a cop out, or is the information too technical? Would it not be possible to summarise it?
Sigh, can't find that one, but it did lead me to Peintner 2007, which has an interesting conclusion. I might just take it out. Not sure yet. Will have another go at finding it when I can have a stretch of uninterrupted time..My thinking is that it would probably be a tad technical for the lay reader and maybe not essential reading though.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
It is technical, and more details probably doesn't belong in here, but I'm of the opinion that wiki articles should start as a jump point for further research, and it's a highly relevant paper for anyone interested in mycorrhizae ... thought it would be better to slip it in the article than as a "Further reading section". Sasata (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Alright, text looks good now, only remaining issue is the taxobox image. I'll probably pass this anyway, but we could maybe talk about what should be done. If we really want the image, a mail could sent to the provider again, asking for the OTRS formalities. Otherwise the images and its derivatives need to be nominated for deletion, so they don't float around on Commons for eternity. I'll leave choosing an alternate image to you. FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Boletus aereus. 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:
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.
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
From the article: "It is commonly known as ontto beltza (black fungus) in Basque"; from my research it appears the spelling should be "onddo beltza". Could the original source be checked to confirm if this is the intended spelling? Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
