Talk:Viola tricolor

message: An anon had changed the correct quote from Midsummer Night's Dream, "Will make or man or woman madly dote..." to read "will make any man or woman madly dote".  Let that person, and anyone else who might think of changing a direct quotation, remember: Shakespeare typically wrote in iambi.  And if you don't know what that means, don't try to improve his text.  Or even if you do.  seglea 22:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For any interested souls,  gives a brief explanation (and verification) for seglea's comment above (because, though submitted 2+ years ago, you never know when someone might come by and disagree with his/her assessment.) Alaaious (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

text: You are talking about Image:Pansiescroped.jpg. Sure. I thought they looked suspect, myself. JöG (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Perhaps things are different in horticulture, but the use of the word 'ramping' seems odd. The footnote suggests (I think) that it means hoisting itself up. The OED just refers to "Growing luxuriantly, vigorously, or excessively." Chambers talks about shares. It's not a common word, so I think it needs defining. Myrvin (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ramping 

message: I noticed Heart's Ease was a redirect to Viola arvensis, which seems to have some basis in online sources eg , but doesn't match the (correct) redirect for Heartsease.  I redirected to redirect to redirect here.  WordNet  suggests those two species plus a third, Viola ocellata.  Personally, I have read, heard and been shown V tricolor as "Heart's ease", and told the name came from the effect of seeing bringing peace of mind, rather than ingesting the plant, so question "As its name implies, Heartsease has a long history of use in herbalism."  References for the etymology would be very helpful.  The OED unhelpfully just says "see Heart and Ease"; and for this usage "The origin and occasion of the name are not clear", with a first use for V tricolor in 1530 (also mentioning Viola lutea), and an obsolete usage for the wallflower Cheiranthus cheiri from 1548 to 1578.
http://www.plantlives.com/docs/V/Viola_tricolor.pdf quotes a poem by Mary Howitt:
:Heart’s ease! one could look for half a day
:Upon this flower, and shape in fancy out
:Full twenty different tales of love and sorrow,
:That gave this gentle name.
I think a merge with Love-in-idleness would be ambitious, and maybe not appropriate.  --Cedderstk 08:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common name 

message: It's just some info on the use of the flower in Shakespeare.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 
:Support - It would be sensible to have the cultural reference merged into the species article. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and  Klbrain (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Love-in-idleness]] 

message: Claims include "no saponins" and "4.2% saponins", 3 sentences later. But the whole section reads like this. Needs rewrite by someone who knows this stuff. Pete Mack (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemicals section is self-contradictory and confusing 

message: It says:
"Its name relates to the use of the flower, as it is often used for idleness or vileness acts."
Is there reputable published support anywhere for this idea? TooManyFingers (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythology: questionable statement 

message: Is this mold and how do I heal my precious plant 2600:6C55:7800:1586:C1CC:F386:88D3:2DF (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mold 

message: I tried to put some logical order into it, but it still needs quite some work.
  
 
I completely took out two sentences:
this one:
"The wild pansy contains—contrary to earlier references—no saponins, but hemolytically active peptides."
 
The reason for removing this was that its source date is 2002, while that other claiming it DOES contain saponins has a much newer source date. Which one is really right/ more reliable, I do not know.
 
and this one:
"In addition, it contains the drug phenolcarboxylic acids, such as coffee and coumaric acid."
for obvious reasons, I think? (Or does this sentence make sense to anyone out there?)
There are, and I left them in, just grouped them together, TWO paragraphs dealing with flavonoids and possibly other compounds, which both in themselves are not completely clear and are, on top, at least partly repetitive of each other.
 
Those need reviewing and editing.
 
As would be good for the whole chapter. 
 
 
(And I dearly wish people wouldn't constantly abuse Wikipedia as advertisement platform for their one single specialised lab study, and just press it in anywhere, without respect for the real subject of the article or Wikipedia's purpose, or abuse it as their homework exercise book. This is just so annoying and un-nice, dear writers.
(Here referring to the neoblastoma study and the (poor) artificially inflamed rats (I left the latter reference in as reference to the anti-inflammation properties claim, although one rat study proves NOTHING about humans, so probably should much better be taken out of there, (and all the other claims seem completely unreferenced,) and only shortened the one-certain-cancer-with-NO-positive-findings one to what seems appropriate for the flower article (surely there is room for the description of that certain cancer on ITS page). 
 
I very sincerely hope that nobody will unconsideringly "press the revert button" on those.)) 
 
 
That would be so sweet, if people who seem to KNOW more about this stuff than "the common public" AND seem keen to contribute, would try and do it in a clear, understandable way, first looking at what is already there, and connecting their new contributions to this in a logical way. 
Anybody out there willing to transform these lengthy lists of ...-oids, ...-ins etc. into a text that makes SENSE to both experts AND "know-nothing, but willing to learn"-readers? :-D
(In this field I am more "know nothing", but got a strong feeling that experts would not be too happy with this mix up here, either, until now...) 
 
Have a nice day, dear fellow wikipedians, despite my " rant", and please of course correct my edits in case I made mistakes. Thank you for sharing your knowledge in topics and language! :-) :-) 2A02:3031:202:A485:50DE:1654:4775:4DC6 (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Biochemistry' section still a mess! 

message: :According to Roman mythology, the wild pansy turned into the Love-in-idleness as Cupid shot one of his arrows at the imperial votaress, but missed and instead struck it.
What's an imperial votaress? Marnanel (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The imperial votaress