Talk:Narcissus (plant)

message: From the above section, "The name jonquil is sometimes used in North America, particularly in the South,...". This is ambiguous as south with a capital S makes me think of the Southern United States. On the other hand saying North America would indicate that the word is used in Mexico and north to some undefined part of the US. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Narcissus (plant)#Names]] 

message: Really excellent edits to the article today. I undid just one added sentence because it was misleading:There is no need to capitalise or italicise the word "narcissus", as it is a common word in the English language. 
Although "narcissus" is indeed one of the popular names of the plant and a common noun, it is also the genus, and in the latter usage it is generally (and properly) capitalized and italicized (e.g., Narcissus poeticus var. recurvus, N. obvallaris). Rivertorch (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it must be Narcissus poeticus var. recurvus – connecting terms are not italicized. Although I agree that the added sentence is misleading, it is probably worth explicitly noting that the genus name, properly written as Narcissus, has become the common English name, narcissus. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right, and thanks for the clarification. (My wiki markup skills are atrocious!) While we're at it, it might be more accurate to say that the genus name has become a common English name. Many, if not most, people call them daffodils. Rivertorch (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, at least in my part of the world, usage is more complicated. "Daffodils" would typically have large trumpets, with flowers probably including some shade of yellow. "Narcissi" would be used for forms with small trumpets, with flowers more likely to be mainly white. Many bulb catalogues also make this distinction, which is difficult to source reliably for Wikipedia. So definitely, "narcissus" is only a common name. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the regional variations can be confusing, and I think there also are differences between members of the general public (who may make arbitrary distinctions), people who are involved with the genus in a professional or quasi-professional or enthusiast capacity (e.g., growers, hybridizers, show exhibitors, sellers), and those who approach it from a botanical standpoint. Of course, there's also the word "jonquil" to further complicate things. I can provide reliable sources that insist that this word should never be used except to describe N. jonquilla or one of its Division 7 derivatives, but such prescriptiveness is kind of silly when a whole bunch of people have referred to anything in the genus as a jonquil over their whole lives. The article probably can be fleshed out a bit on the matter of usage, but there's nothing glaringly wrong there now. (It's hard to be wrong when there is no "wrong".) Rivertorch (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization/italicization 

message: I really think this is high rather than mid importance, it is already level 4. Given that I really think we should aim for GA status. The Germans have already reached that, indeed did so many years ago! There is a long way to go but I have added quite a bit and am raising quality to C. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The test I make is to compare the article to Banana, as an exemplar of "High" importance. Banana typically gets 3,500-4,000 hits a day, and is about 1,500th in the viewing statistics. Narcissus runs at about 60 hits a day. It's really only of interest in relatively temperate countries with a tradition of spring bulb growing. All this suggests to me that based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Assessment#Importance scale, it should only rank as "Mid", however interesting it is to you and me! Peter coxhead (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We probably need a more objective test. I based my assessment on economic importance. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, but even on that test, it's hard to compare daffodils and narcissi with major food crops. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why we need objective criteria, rather than popularity such as internet hits. I am basing my assessment on the fact that most major works dealing with the genus stress its importance. I wonder if concept has been discussed across the board? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

text: And with a bit of improvement we now get 600-800 hits a day --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Clean up status - all references now in reflist=, and cite format. I think we can go ahead and nominate for GA now since it can take a few months before the review process starts --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

text: On 29 October 2014 (UTC) Peter coxhead (talk) wrote: "far beyond GA status, in my view". Which I believe would now qualify as an A class.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Clean up status - Bibliography and external links all checked and converted to cite format --Michael Goodyear (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Provided introductory lead summarising page --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Systematic clean up in progress, section by section --Michael Goodyear (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

text: All refs checked, redlinks eliminated by writing supplementary pages --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Creating, correcting or upgrading pages linked to by this page--Michael Goodyear (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

text: All species now have separate pages --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status 

message: Admittedly, the use of Lentern lily is uncommon, but it does occur, and is sourced. First it appears in ecclesistical writing, eg Oxford, Hereford, and secondly in Masefield's novel 'Brimstone'. Some versions of Houseman spell Lenten as Lentern, although it is possibly a corruption of the text. Obviously not a major issue, but at least the curious will find sources cited here --Michael Goodyear (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common names 

message: A note was left on an edit that the fact that daffodils were yellow was never mentioned. Since there is a range of colours, stating the range of the spectrum should suffice, rather than listing every single colour separately. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour 

message: Just a few small points. I can't access the cites that go to Google Books, so I can't check the paraphrasing.
:That is very odd - I have checked them all from several different platforms without problems. Any idea why? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead should serve as a a free standing article, and should include the main features as reflected by the various sections in the main text. The small paragraphs of course reflect individual sections. I will take a closer look shortly, along with the MOS. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a long article with many sections, nevertheless I have shortened it and consolidated the paragraphs.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Reworded--Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Reworded. This is a perennial problem in the Plant Project - how to use precise technical words but at the same time make the text intelligible to the maximum number of people. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

text: OK - to be fair, that is the style I have used in other PlantProject GA articles (e.g. Liliaceae). My understanding is that by 'heading' the MOS refers to formal indexed section titles between = signs, while this is an informal heading. Also the MOS uses the words "should normally not contain linkss", which is not an absolute proscription. I actually like the appearance, because it sets out the various parts quite clearly avoiding dense texts. I don't know how strongly you feel about this. The bolding may not be absolutely necessary, but I find it helps with navigation in a long article. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Little Review

message: * GA 2 February 2015
reviwed 22 Novemebr 2016 --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA status log 

message: The toxic effects of ingesting Narcissus products for both man and animals (such as cattle, goats, pigs and cats) have long been recognised and they have been used in suicide attempts. Ingestion of N. pseudonarcissus or N. jonquilla is followed by salivation, acute abdominal pains, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, then neurological and cardiac events, including trembling, convulsions, and paralysis. Death may result if large quantities are consumed. The toxicity of Narcissus varies with species, N. poeticus being more toxic than N. pseudonarcissus, for instance. Nor is the distribution of toxins even within the plant, for instance there is a five times higher concentration of alkaloid in the stem of N. papyraceus than in the bulb, making it dangerous to herbivores more likely to consume the stem than the bulb, and is part of the plant's defence mechanisms.[18]
Not all Narcissus species are equally dangerous. The bulbs of N. poeticus, for example, are more dangerous than those of N. pseudonarcissus. Neither do all plant tissues have the same concentration or profile of alkaloids. Thus, the alkaloid content of N. papyraceus is five times higher in the aerial part than in the bulbs, being toxic for herbivorous mammals. The distribution of the alkaloids in the plant tissues can be related with the plant's defense mechanism such as protection from parasites. The bulbs can also be toxic to other nearby plants, including roses, rice, and cabbages, inhibiting growth.[18] For instance placing cut flowers in a vase alongside other flowers shortens the life of the latter.[174]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.47.87 (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - obvious editing error - fixed, thanks.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toxicity section has redundant text 

message: There is a common problem with growing paperwhite (& related?) bulbs indoors: they grow too tall and fall over. In recent years there is a common recommendation to stunt the growth by watering with a solution of up to 10% alcohol. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article.-71.174.190.122 (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  alcohol used to stunt growth 

message: * "Narcissus papyraceus, one of a few species known as paperwhite..." Narcissus papyraceus
Please include a list of the paperwhite species.
The article Narcissus (plant) has good content about "'Paperwhite form", but is vague about specifics.-71.174.190.122 (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  paperwhite species 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Narcissus (plant). 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/20141006094204/http://stjohndfw.info/sunday-of-the-holy-cross-the-daffodils-of-resurrection.html to http://stjohndfw.info/sunday-of-the-holy-cross-the-daffodils-of-resurrection.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Narcissus (plant). 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/20141006151144/http://bibdigital.bot.uc.pt/obras/UCFCTBt-E-21-26-29_72/UCFCTBt-E-21-26-29_72_item1/UCFCTBt-E-21-26-s2-25/UCFCTBt-E-21-26-s2-25_item1/P119.html to http://bibdigital.bot.uc.pt/obras/UCFCTBt-E-21-26-29_72/UCFCTBt-E-21-26-29_72_item1/UCFCTBt-E-21-26-s2-25/UCFCTBt-E-21-26-s2-25_item1/P119.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141111054314/http://www.herefordcathedral.org/about-us/news/the-cathedral-gardens-in-winter/ to http://www.herefordcathedral.org/about-us/news/the-cathedral-gardens-in-winter/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150227063529/http://arts.cultural-china.com/en/63Arts4309.html to http://arts.cultural-china.com/en/63Arts4309.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150512131437/http://www.staatsgalerie.de/malereiundplastik_e/altdeu_rundg.php?id=3 to http://www.staatsgalerie.de/malereiundplastik_e/altdeu_rundg.php?id=3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Narcissus (plant). 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/20070815061353/http://ittendojo.org/articles/general-8.htm to http://www.ittendojo.org/articles/general-8.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141015080916/https://store.brentandbeckysbulbs.com/spring/genus.php?genusid=44&division=D14 to https://store.brentandbeckysbulbs.com/spring/genus.php?genusid=44&division=D14
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141015155023/https://store.brentandbeckysbulbs.com/--spring/Amaryllidaceae/Narcissus/Thalia/Daffodil/sku-01-0503 to https://store.brentandbeckysbulbs.com/--spring/Amaryllidaceae/Narcissus/Thalia/Daffodil/sku-01-0503
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140531003709/http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/s2013/cook_dani/index.htm to https://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/s2013/cook_dani/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141206201657/http://www.vanengelen.com/narcissus.html to http://www.vanengelen.com/narcissus.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141217230024/http://pnwhandbooks.org/plantdisease/daffodil-narcissus-spp-virus-diseases to http://pnwhandbooks.org/plantdisease/daffodil-narcissus-spp-virus-diseases
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141103180736/http://www.bulbsonline.org/ibc/en/publiek/index.jsf to http://www.bulbsonline.org/ibc/en/publiek/index.jsf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923195128/http://www.bulbsonline.org/ibc-jsp/en/education/beroepsonderwijs/introduction/Narcissus.xml to http://www.bulbsonline.org/ibc-jsp/en/education/beroepsonderwijs/introduction/Narcissus.xml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Both the Narcissus (plant) and Taxonomy of Narcissus articles have a "Names and etymology" section (here and here respectively).  Any chance these could be combined to avoid duplication?  I would hazard putting it all at Narcissus (plant) with a link from Taxonomy of Narcissus would be better but what say ye?  —  AjaxSmack  15:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason why Taxonomy of Narcissus should cover the English language names and their etymology. Since that has the more elaborate coverage that would mean moving stuff from there to here, before removing it from there. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicated "Names and etymology" sections