Talk:Agaricus bisporus

message: Shouldn't this article be moved to Table mushroom? Supermarkets almost always label them as "table mushrooms". — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Table mushroom" seems somewhat ambiguous, conceivably taken to include edible mushrooms in general, and gets substantially fewer google hits than "button mushroom".  — Pekinensis 01:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Portobello mushrooms are actually considerably larger than the common small white mushrooms you see in supermarkets. The Portobellos I've seen are generally 4" to 6" and brownish in colour. They also are much more flavorful than the standard "button" mushrooms you seem to be referring to... Kris Wood 08:37, 1 August 2005
Hmmm that's odd, the link I clicked for discuss was on the Portobello mushroom article, and was referring the merging of that article with button mushroom. While it may be a subspecies, it does have distinct differences and that's what I was referring to above, just didn't want anyone wondering why I was rambling about portobellos in the button discussion. :) Kris Wood 08:42, 1 August 2005
:Yes, the  and  templates are set up to concentrate discussion on the page of the target article.  When I put the tag there, I probably should have started the discussion here to avoid confusion.  Sorry about that.
:My feeling is that vegetable varieties usually don't need separate articles, unless and until there is a lot of material on the variety.  The wiki is plastic enough that this is not a decision for all time, and can be made on the basis of how much material there is now, rather than how much material there may be in the future.  For example, broccoli, cabbage, kale, and so on get their own articles, while pinto bean, kidney bean, navy bean, and so on are treated in subsections of common bean.
:— Pekinensis 16:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done the merge.  Pictures would be nice, although I believe that de:Champignons treats the whole genus, and the large brown mushrooms shown there are A. silvaticus.  I've moved the interwiki link to Agaricus.  — Pekinensis 22:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support votes====
# Cas Liber 22:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Cas Liber 22:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Support votes

message: The statement "Mushroom hunting can be a satisfying hobby" is unsourced, biased, and seems unnecessary.  I do not deny the possibility that mushroom hunting could be a satisfying hobby, but in order to maintain encyclopaedic tone the fact should be demonstrated through facts (or at least sourced assertions).
:You're right - the whole bit needs an overhaul. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Bias

message: *notes on nutrition as it is such a widely consumed foodstuff. There will be info out there
*notes on who named it and when. There is also controversy whether it should be A. bisporus or A. brunnescens. 
*Nice to get some more info on Psalliota.
*expand history section
More to come later. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning a to-do list of sorts towards FAC... 

message: I think that someone should throw some information on this page about button mushrooms as a source of vitamin D when zapped with UV. Just google vitamin D and mushrooms and you will find articles about it.
Here is just one news article talking about it, maybe someone can find an actual academic source for this information. .
68.184.35.29 (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't fit into the article at the moment, so I'll leave the references here for now:  Sasata (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vitamin D 

message: Recently a large amount of material was inserted to promote the use of mushrooms to prevent cancer. This sort of treatment is unproven, and should not be promoted uncritically on Wikipedia. As per WP:MEDRS, we should be relying on secondary sources such as medical reviews, not primary sources such as individual studies or press releases. A recent review for this sort of material is here:
*
and I suggest that reviews like this be used to source any discussion of mushrooms for cancer prevention. Eubulides (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

text: No no, working on the article is good - I guess a guideline to structure is consensus statements and review articles would make the lead, and more on developments WRT research can be expanded upon in the Oncology section. It is a learning curve :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using mushrooms to prevent cancer 

message: It says:
"Recently it was noticed that mushrooms contain high amounts of Vitamin D[17]  (especially when UV-irradiated[18][19]) This is notable due to the fact no other vegetable is currently known to contain vitamin D naturally. A mushroom company in California offers A. bisporus previously exposed to UV light with 100% RDA of vitamin D per 3 ounces.[1]"
Mushrooms are a fungus, not a vegetable. 
Pooka and Fygar (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since when are mushrooms a "vegetable"? 

message: I've never heard of the ominous "Mushroom Council" before, but if they're notable enough that anyone cares whether they use 'portabella' or 'portobello'... then why don't they have an article yet? Are they some sort of official body that governs the use of mushrooms? Should we bother to name the exact spellings used by any random mushroom-related organization? 8.18.38.105 (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mushroom Council? 

message: Considering it is mainly cultivated for human consumption, shouldn't there be a section describing the flavor, texture, etc of both the young and the mature mushroom, as well as its most common uses in food? As the article currently stands, it is fine for people looking for botanical information about it, but there is quite little about the culinary aspect (which may be the most popular interest people may have in the article). — al-Shimoni (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As just a comparison, see the "Culinary Use" section of the Truffle article. — al-Shimoni (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I certainly agree. Many sources describe white mushrooms has having less flavor than brown, and portobello (mature) specimens are widely used as a meat substitute. Not sure what would be the best references to cite, though. GCL (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! That's the info I was looking for. 67.254.199.19 (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flavor, Texture, Food Uses 

message: I was wondering what the 'Chestnut Mushroom' commonly seen in super markets (resembling a brown button mushroom) is, so I did a little research and after finding no mention of it on Wikipedia I found the name 'Agaricus bisporus var. Avellaneus'. I'm not sure yet if 'var. Avellaneus' is a mycologically recognised name or just a marketing name for cultivation sales, but does anyone else think it's worth mentioning the Chestnut Mushroom as it seems to be everywhere these days. I may do a little more research later Gul e (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chestnut mushroom (var. Avellaneus) 

message: "native to grasslands in Europe and North America" - it can't be native to two different continents.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmo999 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nativity 

message: I believe a press release from the Endocrine Society is sufficiently authoritative to support a statement of some sort, though I am certainly *not* suggesting the proposed statement resemble that attention-grabbing headline in any way.  MarshallKe (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very familiar with MEDRS and normally would have agreed with you. However, I have had a discussion with an editor over at Talk:Lavender_oil who seems to argue that if the source is a press release from a sufficiently authoritative source, then it is a secondary source roughly equivalent to a systematic review and that it is not our place to analyze the analysis (per MEDRS, "Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review."). It would be great if you could join the discussion there. MarshallKe (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Underlying choice of sources and application of MEDRS is also WP:CIR, i.e., medical editors should have the competence to understand the topic sufficiently and assess the quality of evidence, as discussed in WP:MEDASSESS, left pyramid. Studies in mice (or those in vitro, as for the lavender oil discussion) are far too preliminary to mention in an encyclopedia article (bottom of the MEDASSESS left pyramid). An encyclopedia summarizes established content confirmed by scientific consensus - mice and in vitro studies are too preliminary to evaluate their signifiance or to mention, and are years away from being confirmed through scientific consensus. We wait for the WP:MEDRS review article. Zefr (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prostate cancer research