Talk:Ficaria verna

message: It would be useful to have sight of the source of the statement made. None of the images retrieved by Google show anything other than simple text on the grave-stone in Grassmere churchyard. The memorial inside the church appears to have some decoration but nothing resembling a celandine. Unless this statement is verfied, I propose that it is deleted. Velela 16:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Celandine image on Wordsworth's grave

message: I have changed the term used in the text, describing the lesser celandine as a "weed". Please define the term when using it of this plant. As far as I am concerned ,it is a welcome harbinger of spring and not a weed at all. I am deliberately encouraging this lovely plant in my own garden. 86.158.177.52 (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think the term "weed" should only ever be used in sentences such as "...it is regarded as a weed of agriculture in country x where it it is troublesome in fields of Y". A plant is never just a weed especially in areas where it is native and part of the expected flora. This usage is confirmed in the opening paragraph of Weed.   Velella  Velella Talk   22:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with this change. It is a well-known fact that the same plant can be seen as both a desirable garden plant and an undesirable weed by different people. Consider, for example, dandelions, which were brought to North America as a source of food, and have become a noxious weed, at least in the more temperate areas where they grow well, for example in my area of the US. Dandelions are less likely to be considered a weed in Arizona, where they are less able to invade due to the dryness of the climate. Being called a weed is not an absolute judgement against a plant, and the article, before you removed the word weed, acknowledged this fact by saying that the plant is "seen as a ... weed". It did not say "is always a weed in every situation" or "is not ever a desirable garden plant or wildflower" or "is never liked by anyone". By saying "seen as", it acknowledges that this is an opinion of certain people, and other people's opinion may be different. It is certainly true that it is seen as a weed by some people, and therefore the original wording should not have been changed. I understand that your personal opinion of this plant is that it is desirable, and I am inclined to like it when I see it as well, but Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect not only our personal opinions, but also those of other people, especially opinions that can be found in reliable sources. — Eru·tuon 21:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

text: I also disagree with the change.  Reading this 2 years later I'm surprised the word "weed" was r, and by an unregistered user at that. that. This is a highly aggressive, invasive pest plant in it's non-native range.  I believe references to this plant as a weed should be re-added to the article.  I'm also wondering why this article is not titled after it's scientific name as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora). --MCEllis (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Removing the word "weed" from the page was an unjustified action. The word adds factual information to the page, especially considering the number of peer-reviewed articles in the world across several continents, including in it's native range that describe this species as weed. I have re-added it to the article along with other updates.--MCEllis (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Weeds

message: This section is a disaster. There are not enough citations. The claims are not backed up by medical literature. This section used to be called Medicinal uses but that is an inappropriate title considering no actual medical evidence.  I suggest deleting this section if citations are not added soon. --MCEllis (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've attempted to fix this section and to neutralize it's claims. I also added a Toxicity section.--MCEllis (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical herbal use 

message: Need better pictures/illustrations of the "whole" plant, the shape it has from the side. And of the way a plant and a whole bed looks as it goes dormant, dies back (can look like a mass-tangle of long white sprout-stalks) -- gets yellowed and all wilted and flattened!-71.174.183.90 (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  illustrations of dormant phase 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ficaria verna. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bsbi.org.uk/BSBIList2007.xls
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160216232708/https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/wra/ficaria-verna.pdf to https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/wra/ficaria-verna.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160216153620/http://www.naturescalendar.org.uk/wildlife/factfiles/flowers/lessercelandine.htm to http://www.naturescalendar.org.uk/wildlife/factfiles/flowers/lessercelandine.htm
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) 08:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the article, we can read this:
: (...) and ground is left barren and susceptible to erosion, from June to February, during the plant's six-month dormancy phase.
From June 1st to February 28th, it's not six but nine months. From mid-June to mid-February, it's still eight months. So, if the dormancy phase goes from June to February, it's clearly longer than six months. There is a contradiction between the two parts of the statement. -- Martinus KE (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calculation error