Question Is that meant to be one scope or two? I think I could support it for dried mushrooms, but not for Boletus impolitus, and think the scope should be broadened slightly (e.g. Boletus sp. dried mushrooms) due to the similarity of the dried form of many mushrooms if it's meant as one scope. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The scope could be "Boletus impolitus" (dried). One of the interests of this mushroom is his edibility. That's why he's dried. So we can have here only one scope, I agree with George Chernilevsky. I wait a little for other arguments, but I think I'll support soon...--Jebulon (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's wording issues with the scope that should be fixed first. It seems awkward. I have no issues with this getting promoted, just I think it needs a few tweaks. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Comment I would like to support but I am not sure that I would be able to recognize these ones from, let's say, dried Boletus edulis (Cèpe de Bordeaux). However, they look quite edible and delicious but I would need a sample to be sure ;-) --Myrabella (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the precision. Dried Boletus edulis are easely recognizable (white with a brown edge—I realized that I have had some in my kitchen :-), but I agree with the first Adam's comment about the similarity of the dried form of many mushrooms: it's difficult to distinguish them at the review size and without smelling them, when one isn't a specialist. If you made a second nomination for the wider scope "Dried mushrooms" after this one, I could take part in the vote. --Myrabella (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
