Talk:Verbascum thapsus

message: Since many people smoke this plant, or make it into tea, etc., perhaps its similarity to foxglove should be noted. Not sure what the consequences of smoking foxglove would be            Zer0Cool 12:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential danger? 

message: Are you sure that common names should be in bold with in the body of the text? This plant is a common "weed" naturalized in north America and other parts of the world were it is a pest species in grain and hay fields. You just have to visit a few farms to see that it grows in the fields, were it can interfere with harvesting due to its thick hard stalks. Since its a biennial tilling tends to remove it but in fields that are not tilled heavily it persists to flower.   Hardyplants 14:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older entries 

message: I agree that the Mullien page be merged into Common Mullein.  'Mullien' is just a misspelling of mullein. DavidCooke 04:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually much of it might be better merged with Mullein. Although the text starts with Verbascum thapsus, most of the article seems non-specific to the individual species and later mentions white mullien which would appear to be V. lychnitis. -- Solipsist 10:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the redirect should obviously be to Mullein, but I'm not familiar enough with the entire genre to know what article the information is best merged with. Circeus 16:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge of [[Mullien]] to [[Common Mullein]]

message: This article is way over-linked.  It makes it difficult to read.  Does "decades" really have to have a link?  Is every link necessary?  KP Botany 18:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to address to address that alongside User:choess comments. Circeus 20:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Split and reworded the sentence.Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA comments 

message: Excellent work.  I feel this meets all of the Good Article criteria, and I'm happy to promote it.  Congratulations, and thanks for all your hard work. Shimeru 19:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article

message: the words are close, but it appears to be from an anglo-saxion word- molegn I do not have the date of the word but its the root of the common name mullein pronounced woolen as English changed. this by way of my 1940 webster encyclopedic dictionary.  there has to be a better source but not in my small collection of books.  I will work on clearing more of the red links- have nothing more to add to the article so please do your best to clean up my edits.Hardyplants 16:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had also done some research that tended toward French sources (or I wouldn't have reverted). I can look deeper into it, since I hadn't looked specifically in etymological dictionaries. Circeus 10:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  from Old French "Moleine" 

message: I suppose it's not much of an issue since the article has already attained FA status, but I think the Taxonomy section could be made clearer and easier to read by discussing the features of the subspecies directly beneath where they are listed rather than clumping all of the information into one paragraph. I thought of doing this myself, but I thought it best to see if anyone else is opposed to this. Djlayton4 | talk  |  contribs 17:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about this. Splitting the list kinda defeats the purpose of making it a list in the first place, and it makes the actual names harder to locate, in my opinion. Feel free to have a go, though. Circeus 10:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup in Taxonomy Section

message: Image:Verbascumleaf1.jpg
Image:Verbascumleaf2.jpg
Some pictures that might be worth putting in a gallery  Hardyplants 04:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I have to agree with MPF on the photograph of the herbarium sheet: photographs can be copyrighted, and in this case it appears that it has been.  The website that the image was taken from has a clear statement of copyright on the page with the image; moreover see their terms of use where it states clearly and explicitly:
:NHM or its licensors or contributors own the copyright and all other intellectual property rights in the material on the Site. You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit, adapt or otherwise use any material on the Site other than for your own personal non-commercial use.
That seems pretty clear to me.  Finally, under the image itself is the statement "Image reproduced by kind permission of The Linnean Society of London", suggesting that it came from a third party who probably owns the copyright and was used with permission.  In a nutshell, if there is any question of copyright ownership or violation, in lieu of explicit permission an image should not be uploaded to Wikipedia.
I have to question what this image provides to the article in the first place; it's not essential to any information provided, but if it were, it could be listed under "external links". MrDarwin 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. But rather than explain myself here as well, can we central discussion at the Commons talk page please? Hesperian 14:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright

message: I made a few v. minor tweaks to the article - v good read, on the whole.  There seems to be a tendency to assume that plants and readers (?) are on the N American continent though, from the gerneralised phrasing.  I've tried to add country/continent-specific additions for clarification. 86.157.52.185 13:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh,I've just read the above talk threads. I seem to have stuck my oar into a can of worms, to mix my metaphors! My point was that, as a reader coming to the page for the first time, it read vey much that it had been written by N Americans who were concerned with the 'weed' aspect of the plant - witness the refs to herbicide controls etc - and seemed 'out of balance' because of that.  I'm going to stick a few comments in above too. 86.157.52.185 13:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've reverted 2 additions of "North America" because those paragraphs were definitely not intended to be restricted. The other edits were fine, thanks. Circeus 13:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: There are many, many ways of pronouncing latin and none is actually more correct than the others. I'm Italian and Verbascum thapsus here sounds like /vɛr'baskum 'tapsus/. So, please, avoid adding pronunciation of Latin names unless they have become 'naturalised' in the English language (i.e. they can be found in a common English dictionary, such as chrysanthemum, dahlia). Aelwyn (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares what it sounds like in Italian? No one would come here looking for the Italian pronunciation, and anyway Italian orthography is almost phonetic, so it's not an issue. And the point of pronunciation guides is to help people who don't know how to pronounce a word, not those who do.  is the normal English literary pronunciation. Yes, some people want to sound more Latin, but Latin orthography is also almost phonetic, so they don't need pronunciation guides. Well, this name is easy, so it doesn't matter. kwami (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, sorry, it's not that easy. Latin is and has been pronounced in many different ways also among English speakers (e.g. Oxford style). Aelwyn (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if it's pronounced as Latin. Not if it's pronounced as English. The OED, for example, doesn't have multiple English pronunciations for most Latinate names. kwami (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, but I doubt that Verbascum thapsus is listed on the OED, unlike the aforementioned dahlia and chrysanthemum, for which I support adding pronunciation notes. Anyway, if you feel that it does make sense also in this case, I think we could ask for an official policy at ProjectPlants. Bye! Aelwyn (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: "For obvious reasons, the plant, unlike other species of the genus, is not often cultivated."
What are the actual reasons?  
WriterHound (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is cultivated sometimes, but not often, because it is not showy like a number of other species, and like many other species of Verbascum it has a lot of seeds that produce large carpet covering "weedy" displays the year after they blooming. Hardyplants (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Because if cultivated, it is very difficult to get rid of. Circeus (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Obvious?

message: Nice article,good work I wish all the herb entries were this good!
I am not a botanist, but how do:-
Verbascum macrurum,Verbascum olympicum Boiss,Verbascum densiflorum,Verbascum lasianthum Boiss. ex Bentham,Verbascum cilicicum Boiss., V. lasianthum Boiss. ex Bentham, V pterocalycinum var. mutense Hub.-Mor., and V. salviifolium Boiss,  Verbascum pterocalycinum var. mutense Hub.-Mor., Verbascum wiedemannianum, Verbascum mallophorum and Verbascum antiochium Boiss.,
Fit into the picture here?
Michael Bailes  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Bailes (talk • contribs) 03:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not clear what the question is intended to mean. As formulated, I have no idea what anyone could answer other than "they are also mullein species". Circéus (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Help:Category says that "Categories help readers to find, and navigate around, a subject area, to see pages sorted by title, and to thus find article relationships." Including the category Flora of Spain (I care about the flora of Spain; my argument is extensible to anyone who cares about the flora of other countries) aids in this goal. It is by no means "unnecessary." 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you want a source that specifically claims this plant is native to Spain, here you go: http://www.pfaf.org/user/plant.aspx?LatinName=Verbascum+thapsus "Range: Europe, including Britain, from Norway south and east to Spain, temperate Asia to China." 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, that category is covered by :category:flora of Europe. If we tag widespread plant for every single country we get a category nightmare. Circéus (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The category of Flora of Spain is not "covered" by the category of Flora of Europe. The purpose of the categories is not to add to the content of the article, but to make the article more accessible by adding it to the category pages. I was looking for the name of this plant I new about, and searched for it under the category of Flora of Spain, and it wasn't there. I eventually found it, and put the link in the category for the very purpose of other people who might have performed the same search as me. The inclusion of the category incontrovertibly improves wikipedia, and I will fight it. Please do not WP:OWN this article, and let's be civil and not take it to WP:3RR. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, Spain is certainly in Europe. This is a widely-distributed species, and it's hard to see the point of adding Flora of Liechtenstein, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and all the rest, when Europe does indeed say what needs to be said. It won't do, and here's why: I agree with Circéus that there are very many possible location categories for very many plants (and other species), and with the implication that the task of categorisation if we were to agree that every instance of any species touching any geographic region would have a category would lead to silly results. For if regions can be the size of the smallest country, why stop at Spain? What about Flora of Castile, Aragon, Catalonia? How about the Floras of the provinces of Huelva, Sevilla, Almeria, Murcia? And what about the Floras of Spanish Upland Acid Grasslands and Spanish Upland Calcareous Grasslands? Alarm bells should be ringing, warning lamps flashing red. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flora of Spain 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Verbascum thapsus. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=VERBA
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://wssa.net/Weeds/ID/WorldOfWeeds/mullein.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=VETH
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxious?rptType=State&statefips=08
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxious?rptType=State&statefips=15
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nreninf.nsf/LinkView/D2FE171D9ECA1CC9CA256BCF000AD563ECC844336D72F0634A256DEA00293F8A
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sfu.ca/biology/esbc/Journal/journal2003/2003_Horton.pdf
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/dicyphus.htm
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://enotes.com/alternative-medicine-encyclopedia/mullein
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article states:
The plant produces a shallow taproot.
which is sourced to this site
While, this site states:
The plant has a deep taproot along with a fiberous root system.
Sounds contradictory. Can someone sort it out?--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taproot length 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Verbascum thapsus. 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/20121025180356/http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?41150 to http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?41150
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090715220411/http://www.uns.edu.ar/inbiar/ver_especie.asp?especie_id=333 to http://www.uns.edu.ar/inbiar/ver_especie.asp?especie_id=333
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425175203/http://www.biocontrol.entomology.cornell.edu/predators/Campylomma.html to http://www.biocontrol.entomology.cornell.edu/predators/Campylomma.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725094157/http://botanyjohn.org/gallery2/v/ubcbgseed/2006_680_0131.jpg.html to http://botanyjohn.org/gallery2/v/ubcbgseed/2006_680_0131.jpg.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) 05:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Verbascum thapsus. 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/20110513210128/http://www.floraiberica.org/floraiberica/texto/pdfs/13_144_01_Verbascum.pdf to http://www.floraiberica.org/floraiberica/texto/pdfs/13_144_01_Verbascum.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120606145454/http://wbd.etibioinformatics.nl/bis/flora.php?selected=beschrijving&menuentry=soorten&id=3577 to http://wbd.etibioinformatics.nl/bis/flora.php?selected=beschrijving&menuentry=soorten&id=3577
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150213075134/http://www.drlowdog.com/Assets/pdf_files/FIHM_online_docs/fihm_part_3/fihm_11_respiratory_system/Handouts/mullein_Review.pdf to http://www.drlowdog.com/Assets/pdf_files/FIHM_online_docs/fihm_part_3/fihm_11_respiratory_system/Handouts/mullein_Review.pdf
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) 05:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Verbascum thapsus. 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/20110312005513/http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/management/ipcw/pages/detailreport.cfm%40usernumber%3D87%26surveynumber%3D182.php to http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/management/ipcw/pages/detailreport.cfm%40usernumber%3D87%26surveynumber%3D182.php
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) 14:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This was mentioned at WT:PLANTS as an unreviewed featured article. Short of checking sources it looks pretty good.
What is likely to have changed since the original review is the understanding of taxonomy, but a cursory glance at Google Scholar indicates that while Murbeck's sections and subsections are not natural (and that Celsia is both non-monophyletic and nested within Verbascum there is not a resolved phylogeny.
I think it would be better to refer to Murbeck's original works for his classification (at least 2 of the 4 are available at RBJM via Biodiversity Heritage Library) that to the sccondary sources used. Or perhaps, since there is no consensus on the infrageneric classification of Verbascum, just drop the all or part of the paragraph - discussion of the history of infrageneric classification would fit within the genus article. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  URFA