Talk:Agapanthus

message: What good is the enormous "selected cultivars" list? (And does this imply that some names were actually left out???) In reality only a very few of these are commercially available. I would suggest deleting the entire list except for those few that are well-known or widely grown.
The "selected cultivars" listed are not all of the 650 plus cultivars available worldwide.  Many deciduous cultivars are available in Europe where as it is the evergreen varieties which are predominant in Australia and New Zealand.  What is widely grown in one country is not necessarily available in another country so why delete any at all.  Maybe it should be added to listing which cultivars are available on each continent.
:That doesn't answer my question: what does the list add to the article, except for the fact that there are lots and lots of cultivars in this group? Where and how can I get more information on any particular name? Where does this list come from? How accurate is it? How reliable is it? Are any of these names synonyms of others, are all of them "good" cultivars, are any extinct? I am skeptical of all such lists (even lists of species under genera) unless they are sourced and at least somewhat verifiable. MrDarwin 14:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The page was tagged for a possible merge with "Agapanthaceae"; this family isn't recognized by APG III so such a merge isn't relevant and I removed the template. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel strongly about the merge, though I am chary of such merges. However in this case, in the light of the confused situation in the taxonomy, I suggest that the subject be put on hold until there is some clear opinion on which family or subfamily is the appropriate one. JonRichfield (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is actually a  merge than the one I commented on in January 2012 – that was with the family "Agapanthaceae", this is with the subfamily Agapanthoideae.  As we use APG III in the English Wikipedia which recognizes this subfamily, and as the subfamily is monogeneric, this merge should take place. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh. OK then. JonRichfield (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge completed – there was actually very little different information at Agapanthoideae. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge tag

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Agapanthus. 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/20131104085302/http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/publications/researchpubs/Fecundity_of_dwarf_Agapanthus.pdf to http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/publications/researchpubs/Fecundity_of_dwarf_Agapanthus.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Sources say that the umbel has two "spathe valves" (see e.g. p. 15 here) at its base.  These are described as "deciduous", i.e. they may fall off.  Images and personal observation suggest that the umbel is initially enclosed in a spathe, which splits, supposedly into two parts, but I think that sometimes (in some cultivars?) there's only one split producing only one part.  However, we can only put in the article what sources say, and I can't find a source for this. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spathe valves / bracts