Talk:Taraxacum officinale

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: If nobody objects, in a few days I'm going to redirect this article to Dandelion. It doesn't add anything to the information found there. --Dbutler1986 (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: REDIRECT

message: So, where is the species native?  --Una Smith (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question - don't have good answer though.  Surely Eurasia, one subspecies is native in Alaska. I am sure this plant has traveled around for a long time with human migrations.  Hardyplants (talk) 05:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Also a good question is: If the plant "was originally imported to America as a food crop", how was it "used by Native Americans as a food and medicine."? 162.89.0.47 (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native where? 

message: "It blooms from March until October"
Oh, yellow fields for a half of a year. This would be very nice as for myself. Cmapm (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloom

message: I'd like to merge Medicinal properties of dandelion into this article, since it duplicates the subject and scope of this page. Really, I'd like to just delete it right out, but it might have some points that aren't covered in the Uses section of this page. Should it be merged into this page? Any thoughts? Indeterminate (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That page is in bad shape. "Dandelions may have medicinal uses." Oh, really? "The medicinal and nutritional uses for the dandelion are the main reasons why there are so many dandelions today." Seems very unlikely to me. Merging the page by copying any sane information it contains to the present article seems to be the best approach. Hans Adler 20:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That page is indeed in terrible shape. One of the worst statements was clearly vandalism ( 02:28, 1 August 2008 74.210.68.175), but the first version of the page is no good either. I support reducing it to any tiny fragments that might be salvageable. It would be necessary to check every statement; the PDR and encyclopedia listed should be perfectly good as references. However, there seems to be sufficient medicinal info on this page already. Nadiatalent (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Support merge as above. Go ahead. Naturenet | Talk 09:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, the page has been replaced by a redirect. I haven't added the references to this page because there seem to be enough already. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The list of subspecies on this page was quite a problem, but clearly removing it is not popular. FNA was originally cited for the list of subspecies, but it actually says something rather opposite to that "Phenotypic and genotypic variation of this species have been studied in North America ... but results of those studies did not lead to the recognition of microspecies." That's botanist speak for "they decided to not split the species, as it occurs in NA".
Some comments:
Taraxacum ceratophorum probably needs its own page, citing http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=242351280
The autonym T. officinale subsp. officinale shouldn't have any authorities, autonyms don't, any source that cites it with authorities is not good botany, and should be disregarded.
Rothmaler's flora of Germany dates from 1966 and occurs with the phrase "in the past". We need to decide whether to consider that outdated or current, and whether to follow FNA in considering that subsp. vulgare and subsp. officinale don't need to be separated.
I have seen, but don't have Dudman, A.A.; Richards, A.J. 1997, 2000. Dandelions of Great Britain and Ireland. Botanical Society of the British Isles, London.
If anyone can check it, it might discuss what is a good up-to-date classification of T. officinale throughout the world. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subspecies 

message: User:Nguyen1310 has changed the article's description of Taraxacum officinale, based on a plant found in his neighbor's backyard. That plant had stems 1-2 cm thick, with brown thorns like those of a rose bush, and was capable of being chopped down. If the description is correct, the plant was not T. officinale. (I would be interested to know what it was. Are there any pictures of it?) I have reverted Nguyen's edits. Maproom (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it was Sonchus asper? Maproom (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, quite certain it was a dandelion, because the leaves are more broad, they're flat [not crinkly on the edges], and 100% smooth with no spines/prickles of any sort. Thorns are only on the [woody, and brownish] main stem [lower ~50 cm, not above], while all other parts have no thorns/prickles whatsoever, and other arms/internodes are smooth, crunchy, moist and green. Regrettably i didn't take  pictures of it... Nguyen1310 (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nguyen1310's plant 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Taraxacum officinale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070812144926/http://plantwatch.sunsite.ualberta.ca/plants/com_dan.php to http://plantwatch.sunsite.ualberta.ca/plants/com_dan.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Crepidinae sp. (Slovenia).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 13, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-05-13. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Crepidinae sp. (Slovenia).jpg]] to appear as POTD soon