Talk:Mandrake (plant)

message: Sorry I haven't typeset the Godot quote so well, I will come back and redo it when I get a better idea of the house style for this sort of thing. Notjim
:ok i think it is better now  Notjim 16:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Godot quote

message: I added its appearance in the article and IPSOS deleted it. The description of it in the movie is relevant as to the mythology and supposed uses of the plant. It is also not found on any other page in the mandrake disambiguation. Is there a reason for it not to appear on this page?  Lnkinprk777 04:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's trivia. In order for it not to be trivia, mandrake would have to be a main character or theme. This is not an "In popular culture" section, it's an "In literature" section. You will note that all the entries have to do with well established literature and authors. None of the authors represented are still living. Pop culture is simply not relevant to the article. IPSOS (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The mandrake is in fact a driving plot element in the movie, as its discovery and destruction are instantly followed by the death of the mother.  I would also point out that many of the entries under the "In literature" section are mere passing references and not main characters or themes.  I've added an "In film" section to the article, which is certainly as valid as an "In literature" section.  The scope of knowledge in this article should not be limited in a misguided attempt to seem "high-brow."  Film is an established component of the Arts, a recognized driver of public discourse (see Birth of a Nation, Schindler's List, Seven Samurai, etc etc etc), and has a well-deserved place within Wikipedia.  Pan's Labyrinth is a critically-acclaimed and award-winning film and certainly merits its mention here.   Traoki 14:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of mandrake in Pan's Labyrinth

message: For effect study http://www.erowid.org/plants/mandrake/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.34.101 (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects 

message: Discussions on effects are totally bunk.  What pseudoscientific BS.
Atropine, etc. block cholinergic transmission.  Sedation due to lipophilic anticholinerics (scopolamine) are due to central inhibition.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.1.89 (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  utter crap

message: I know they're in there. 24.158.40.160 (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes, enough mythology; what about the drugs?

message: I think the excerpt about Jesus and the mandrake root is irrelevant, especially since there is theological debate within that paragraph.  If someone can describe the somatic effects of the Mandrake root and link to a relevant article, that would be better. 67.62.240.136 06:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus 

message: I'm going to ask first in this case, since it's easy to overdo the "popular culture" references, but I think this might be suitable.  The Mandragora in the DS game(s) appears as a small plant that, upon approach, pops out of the ground with a shrill shriek which can do heavy damage, in reference to the legend of the plant screaming as it's uprooted.  Should I add that, or would it just get wiped as "fancruft"? Errick 16:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Castlevania 

message: Can somebody supply a reference for the Josephus quote? I can't find it. Thank you.
Cut and Shoot 11:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: The Mandrake (plant) page is badly cluttered with references to popular culture, many (most? all?) of which are not actually references to the plant, but simply to the name "mandrake" or "mandragora". I notice someone proposed a "Mandrake in popular culture" page, but even on such a page, much of the material here would be irrelevant. As someone with horticultural and botanical interest in this plant, the mass of irrelevant material on this page is quite striking, and makes it difficult to see that, in fact, there is very little or no horticultural and botanical information on it.
We really need to create two new pages, "Mandrake (plant) in popular culture" and "Mandrake (the name) in popular culture". This raises another issue, to wit that the material on the Bible and Josephus isn't quite what one calls "popular culture". Maybe "Mandrake in literature and history" would do.
I should add that I grow two species of Mandragora, in case that adds some weight to my remarks.
PS: I've added two references to books, but I haven't correlated them with the existing text so there're just stuck on at the end of External References.
Floozybackloves (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move non-botanical info to another page? 

message: 67.170.151.136 (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  datura in Brewing? 

message: The photo depicting a mandrake root doesn't look like a mandrake at all, and it's the same image that appears on mandrakeseeds.com as a photograph of a mayapple root, where it is mentioned as a root commonly mistaken for mandrake.  Can someone provide a graphic for this article that is indisputably a mandrake?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.147.135.83 (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable photo 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: 
* :Mandrake (plant) merged to Mandragora officinarum
* :Mandrake moved to Mandrake (disambiguation)
* :Mandrake redirected to Mandragora officinarum
(NAC, if it matters) No such user (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Plantdrew has proposed a more complex action instead of the simple move; that's what I support. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this proposal. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
For any post-move discussion, please go to Talk:Mandragora officinarum#Merges and moves. No such user (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 7 February 2015 

message: No such user, what happened? Why is the article on the plant not at Mandrake, like most of us actually agreed it should be? Red Slash 22:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My reading was that the participants preferred the article to be at the scientific name, with Mandrake redirecting there; it was Plantdrew's proposal, to which Peter and AjaxSmack agreed, and the proposer did not object. While, personally, I slightly prefer the original proposal as well, the consensus got the other way round. As far as I know, plant naming conventions permit both. No such user (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have posted a move request at Talk:Mandragora officinarum re this discussion.  —  AjaxSmack  00:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Wait, what??