Talk:Narcissus (plant)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Narcissus (plant)#Names[edit]

From the above section, "The name jonquil is sometimes used in North America, particularly in the South,...". This is ambiguous as south with a capital S makes me think of the Southern United States. On the other hand saying North America would indicate that the word is used in Mexico and north to some undefined part of the US. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Horticultural divisions[edit]

I'm not really sure how nobody noticed this over the last five years, but the entire Horticultural divisions section appears to be original research by User:GardenOpus. He even cites himself in the text of the article! In addition, it doesn't appear that the American Daffodil Society was ever mentioned in the article before he edited it, so I would recommend looking into how much significance/authority that organization actually has. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 18:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted! There are a number of different systems of dividing up garden narcissi. The Royal Horticultural Society is the official International Registration Authority for the genus Narcissus as noted here. Thus the correct divisions, i.e. those covered by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, will be those given by the RHS and not by any other organization (although in the interests of WP:NPOV, they should be mentioned). The divisions are given here.
I don't myself have time to edit the article now, unfortunately. I hope someone does. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The American Daffodil Society has great authority; it acts on behalf of the RHS in registering cultivars in North America, and its database of cultivars is largely derived from the RHS's database. It is, along with the RHS, most certainly a reliable source, and the two organizations' division definitions are basically identical. The divisions section of this article (copyedited by yours truly back in the day) is substantially correct and up to date, although it could use some tweaks and expansion. Incidentally, an overhaul of this article is nearing the top on my to-do list. If you do find the time, drop me a note and maybe we could make it a cooperative effort. Rivertorch (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't making any point against the American Daffodil Society, and it's certainly a reliable source. My intention was only to point out that the starting point should be the official International Registration Authority for the genus, as it should be for all cultivars, although any variant systems used by reliable sources should also be mentioned. What needs fixing is the use of GardenOpus as if it were a reliable source. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but there's no "variant system" here; the divisions and their definitions are the same. I'm going to try to find some time after this weekend to look over the article. Sourcing is one of its issues, and I think I can resolve that fairly easily. Rivertorch (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I only saw this entire discussion after I had already fixed some of the issues raised here. I re-did the RHS Classification system, written just as RHS does, since it is an official system that is widely used. It seems that any rephrasing of that would be original research to some extent. It also seems that because it's so widely used, it constitutes fair use, regarding copyright. I also rewrote the lede, getting rid of the other Gardenopus references, and giving a more general description. First Light (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well now an interesting situation has arisen - that section was moved to List of Narcissus horticultural divisions, and it is being alleged that it is copywrite violation on its talk page because it is written "written just as RHS does", as above. Is it fair use as stated here? Any thoughts? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is now resolved following a rewrite --Michael Goodyear (talk) 05:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization/italicization[edit]

Really excellent edits to the article today. I undid just one added sentence because it was misleading:

There is no need to capitalise or italicise the word "narcissus", as it is a common word in the English language. <ref name = "SOED">{{cite book|title=Shorter Oxford English dictionary, 6th ed.|year=2007|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=United Kingdom|isbn=0199206872|pages=3804}}</ref>

Although "narcissus" is indeed one of the popular names of the plant and a common noun, it is also the genus, and in the latter usage it is generally (and properly) capitalized and italicized (e.g., Narcissus poeticus var. recurvus, N. obvallaris). Rivertorch (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it must be Narcissus poeticus var. recurvus – connecting terms are not italicized. Although I agree that the added sentence is misleading, it is probably worth explicitly noting that the genus name, properly written as Narcissus, has become the common English name, narcissus. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, and thanks for the clarification. (My wiki markup skills are atrocious!) While we're at it, it might be more accurate to say that the genus name has become a common English name. Many, if not most, people call them daffodils. Rivertorch (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, at least in my part of the world, usage is more complicated. "Daffodils" would typically have large trumpets, with flowers probably including some shade of yellow. "Narcissi" would be used for forms with small trumpets, with flowers more likely to be mainly white. Many bulb catalogues also make this distinction, which is difficult to source reliably for Wikipedia. So definitely, "narcissus" is only a common name. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the regional variations can be confusing, and I think there also are differences between members of the general public (who may make arbitrary distinctions), people who are involved with the genus in a professional or quasi-professional or enthusiast capacity (e.g., growers, hybridizers, show exhibitors, sellers), and those who approach it from a botanical standpoint. Of course, there's also the word "jonquil" to further complicate things. I can provide reliable sources that insist that this word should never be used except to describe N. jonquilla or one of its Division 7 derivatives, but such prescriptiveness is kind of silly when a whole bunch of people have referred to anything in the genus as a jonquil over their whole lives. The article probably can be fleshed out a bit on the matter of usage, but there's nothing glaringly wrong there now. (It's hard to be wrong when there is no "wrong".) Rivertorch (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status[edit]

I really think this is high rather than mid importance, it is already level 4. Given that I really think we should aim for GA status. The Germans have already reached that, indeed did so many years ago! There is a long way to go but I have added quite a bit and am raising quality to C. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The test I make is to compare the article to Banana, as an exemplar of "High" importance. Banana typically gets 3,500-4,000 hits a day, and is about 1,500th in the viewing statistics. Narcissus runs at about 60 hits a day. It's really only of interest in relatively temperate countries with a tradition of spring bulb growing. All this suggests to me that based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Assessment#Importance scale, it should only rank as "Mid", however interesting it is to you and me! Peter coxhead (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We probably need a more objective test. I based my assessment on economic importance. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, but even on that test, it's hard to compare daffodils and narcissi with major food crops. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why we need objective criteria, rather than popularity such as internet hits. I am basing my assessment on the fact that most major works dealing with the genus stress its importance. I wonder if concept has been discussed across the board? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any case there is now enough material covering most aspects of the genus, to raise this to B quality. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And with a bit of improvement we now get 600-800 hits a day --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the rating to A, being essentially complete, but it will require a huge clean up to meet GA, although now within reach. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up status - all references now in reflist=, and cite format. I think we can go ahead and nominate for GA now since it can take a few months before the review process starts --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment;

On 29 October 2014 (UTC) Peter coxhead (talk) wrote: "far beyond GA status, in my view". Which I believe would now qualify as an A class.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up status - Bibliography and external links all checked and converted to cite format --Michael Goodyear (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Provided introductory lead summarising page --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Systematic clean up in progress, section by section --Michael Goodyear (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All refs checked, redlinks eliminated by writing supplementary pages --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Creating, correcting or upgrading pages linked to by this page--Michael Goodyear (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All species now have separate pages --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Common names[edit]

Admittedly, the use of Lentern lily is uncommon, but it does occur, and is sourced. First it appears in ecclesistical writing, eg Oxford, Hereford, and secondly in Masefield's novel 'Brimstone'. Some versions of Houseman spell Lenten as Lentern, although it is possibly a corruption of the text. Obviously not a major issue, but at least the curious will find sources cited here --Michael Goodyear (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colour[edit]

A note was left on an edit that the fact that daffodils were yellow was never mentioned. Since there is a range of colours, stating the range of the spectrum should suffice, rather than listing every single colour separately. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Review[edit]

Just a few small points. I can't access the cites that go to Google Books, so I can't check the paraphrasing.

That is very odd - I have checked them all from several different platforms without problems. Any idea why? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • The lead is the most important part of the article, it must be more concise. I suggest boiling it down to the recommended "no more than four well-composed paragraphs" instead of the many small paragraphs. I always find this hard to do but very rewarding.
The lead should serve as a a free standing article, and should include the main features as reflected by the various sections in the main text. The small paragraphs of course reflect individual sections. I will take a closer look shortly, along with the MOS. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a long article with many sections, nevertheless I have shortened it and consolidated the paragraphs.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Description

General

  • "There are several green or blue-green, narrow, strap-shaped leaves that arise from the bulb." - this sounds awkward, beginning the sentence with "there are"
Reworded--Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "proximal" is not common, at least should be explained, much like the other words in the paragraph
Reworded. This is a perennial problem in the Plant Project - how to use precise technical words but at the same time make the text intelligible to the maximum number of people. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specific

  • Linked subheadlines are not encouraged by the MOS and they look strange to me, more like boldened links strewn into the text. I also don't believe it's necessary to bolden the words "bulbs", "stem", and "leaves" in the paragraphs.
OK - to be fair, that is the style I have used in other PlantProject GA articles (e.g. Liliaceae). My understanding is that by 'heading' the MOS refers to formal indexed section titles between = signs, while this is an informal heading. Also the MOS uses the words "should normally not contain linkss", which is not an absolute proscription. I actually like the appearance, because it sets out the various parts quite clearly avoiding dense texts. I don't know how strongly you feel about this. The bolding may not be absolutely necessary, but I find it helps with navigation in a long article. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TBC

Hekerui (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Narcissus (plant)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fredlyfish4 (talk · contribs) 18:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Infobox

  • Does the listed conservation status apply to the entire genus? Normally I see this only for single species or subspecies, so unless it applies to the who genus, leave it out of the infobox.

 Done IUCN lists 5 species. OK I will remove and apply to all species pages listed--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Link to the ancients you refer to in this context

 Done changed and linked to ancient civilisation since I cannot see a way to link to a list of names, and adding names to text would lengthen the lead further--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link to asphodel if possible

 Done linked to Asphodelus as in text --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

  • The lead looks good overall, but should be condensed to 3-4 paragraphs.

 Done shortened and reduced from 5 paragraphs to 4 --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • Should "hermaphrodite" be "hermaphroditic" in this context?

 Done let's stick with hermaphroditic which is in the source cited --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

  • Is there a number of species that the Royal Horticultural Society accepts? If so include it too.

 Done could have been worded better - the International Register is the RHS list - reworded and updated --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • What does "recent hybrids" refer to? Recent with respect to what?

 Done The terms are used as defined by Zonneveld, hence the quotes, to refer to stages in the evolution of speciation. So recent with respect to ancient, ie not yet established as an independent species. Reworded.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology

  • Be careful when stating "most important disease." From what perspective is this the most important? Or is it the most common, most deadly, or something else? Statements like "most important" can appear to violate the neutral point of view (NPOV).

 Done In plant pathology, the term is generally used with reference to economic impact. Reworded - replaced important with serious --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should "narcissus white mould disease" have "Narcissus white mould disease, or is this in line with fungal naming conventions? Same thing with "Narcissus leaf scorch" and "Narcissus eelworm."

 Done I had that same thought when writing this section, but stuck with the naming convention, since the genus name is being used as an adjective, not a proper noun. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is the common swift moth notable? If not explained or verified, just say "including" rather than "notably."

 Done reworded --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cultivation

  • Narcissus is consistently used throughout the article, not daffodil. So why are groups of images labelled as daffodils?

 Done Well not entirely, where sources are using 'daffodil' I stuck with it. i changed one group - the early illustrations, but kept the other because that's what the text refers to. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The quote starting "I thinke none..." needs a citation after it.

 Done It followed the citation - nevertheless I changed it to a {{quote}}--Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • When you state something as being the "most popular" you should include a citation after that exact sentence to reduce potential issues with NPOV.

 Done In this context, 'popular' implies sales data - reworded --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Narcissi as garden plants section is under-referenced

 Done references added --Michael Goodyear (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • When were these two images published or when did the author die? [1], [2]

 Done Dates added to files

Other comments for potential FA review, but not needed for passing GA:

  • Check that all links are not going through redirects (such as perennial in the lead). Done
  • Consistently use the abbreviated species name in the text, "N. tazetta" not "Narcissus tazetta."
  • In the main text of the article there should generally be only one link to each other page. This includes the headings in the description section (bulbs, stems, leaves, etc) that are linked in the article text directly below.
  • I would indent your bulleted lists so that the bullet is below or right of the paragraph edge
  • Something to consider: if the entire Taxonomy of Narcissus article, can the text and table in this section be condensed?
  • Do not leave the end of any paragraph unreferenced.
  • When you have multiple inline citations adjacent to each other, put them in numerical order.
  • Consider archiving webpages and online documents cited in the article.
  • I'm not sure the system of subheadings in the bibliography is appropriate, but I wouldn't change it yet.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

GA status log[edit]

  • GA 2 February 2015

reviwed 22 Novemebr 2016 --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicity section has redundant text[edit]

The toxic effects of ingesting Narcissus products for both man and animals (such as cattle, goats, pigs and cats) have long been recognised and they have been used in suicide attempts. Ingestion of N. pseudonarcissus or N. jonquilla is followed by salivation, acute abdominal pains, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, then neurological and cardiac events, including trembling, convulsions, and paralysis. Death may result if large quantities are consumed. The toxicity of Narcissus varies with species, N. poeticus being more toxic than N. pseudonarcissus, for instance. Nor is the distribution of toxins even within the plant, for instance there is a five times higher concentration of alkaloid in the stem of N. papyraceus than in the bulb, making it dangerous to herbivores more likely to consume the stem than the bulb, and is part of the plant's defence mechanisms.[18]

Not all Narcissus species are equally dangerous. The bulbs of N. poeticus, for example, are more dangerous than those of N. pseudonarcissus. Neither do all plant tissues have the same concentration or profile of alkaloids. Thus, the alkaloid content of N. papyraceus is five times higher in the aerial part than in the bulbs, being toxic for herbivorous mammals. The distribution of the alkaloids in the plant tissues can be related with the plant's defense mechanism such as protection from parasites. The bulbs can also be toxic to other nearby plants, including roses, rice, and cabbages, inhibiting growth.[18] For instance placing cut flowers in a vase alongside other flowers shortens the life of the latter.[174] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.47.87 (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - obvious editing error - fixed, thanks.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting[edit]

I know that this is a good article, but I would like to split Daffodils in culture off from the rest of this article per WP:SPLIT. This article appears to talk about daffodils from a physical perspective before sliding into a historical and cultural one; i.e, Section 9 and its bibliography, as well as its summary in the lead of the article. However, the initial reason why I wanted to split this article: size. This article is 260,468 bytes as of this writing, which is WAY over even the 100,000 byte limit listed in the splitting criteria as "almost certainly should be divided". Do I have permission to split? Thanks. RuneMan3 (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about permission, but I agree that the article needs a split. Splitting off culture sounds reasonable, since I'm not sure that there's another clearly distinct topic that could be split off. Also, not sure if you're saying that the whole Bibliography belongs to the Culture section, but clearly some of it relates to the scientific side of things.
You might want to first check if splitting off culture would bring the article below the 100,000 byte limit. Try creating the article in your user namespace: User:RuneMan3/Daffodils in culture. If so, the split would make sense. Other editors may have more comments to make. — Eru·tuon 04:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting does make sense, particularly now that more and more readers use mobile devices and do not want to try to download and display an article of this length. However, I'm not sure that splitting off culture is the right way to do it. Another approach would be to separate the botanical aspects – the genus Narcissus and its wild species – from the horticultural aspects – cultivated daffodils, their cultivars, cultivation, uses – although this would be more work. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by "its bibliography" was the part of the bibliography section exclusively relating to the "Culture" section of the article. Putting botanical references in a historical article would obviously make no sense, and that would harm the article that could use those parts of the bibliography. So no worries, Eru, no info will go where it would be useless.
Peter coxhead, thanks for giving me an idea. How about I split the medicinal and horticultural parts of the article into the redirect Daffodils, and the historical and cultural parts into the title Daffodils in culture? The botanical parts would be moved to the title Narcissus (genus). How does that sound? RuneMan3 (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly sounds a possibility. It would need to be tried out (e.g. in user space) to see how it worked, since it would be important not to damage the overall quality of the article. I'd like to know what Michael Goodyear thinks. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I realised right at the start of this project that it would eventually lead to hiving off daughter articles, and indeed many GA and FA articles work that way. In fact we have already split off many of the sections. There is precedent, for instance Rose, and during the GA review I mentioned to the reviewer that if thought necessary, I would be prepared to do so. Culture is a required part of GA for plants so it should stay as a section, but have an abbreviated summary here with a redirect hat. I would be in favour of preserving the bibliography in the parent article - part of the reason for structuring the references that way.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also while I do not think that any splitting - not really the right word for creating daughter pages or leaves - would damage the GA status if done well, I think the resultant daughter page should be at GA level and be submitted for that. I am still trying to get the lists created from this page through the FL process, which has been a very long one. As far as mobile devices go - I keep hearing this concern but have been accessing this article on several mobile devices without any issues from its inception. There seems to be two things going on here. The initial suggestion was whether the cultural aspects deserved their own page (and whether that would be narcissus or Daffodil deserves some consideration), but then there is a suggestion of tackling the medicinal and horticultural parts as well. I would advise against multiple drastic edits of the page at once or it may well fall apart and lose its GA status. Interestingly length was never mentioned during the GA review, although I fully expected it might be. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See also my comments on my talk page.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Transfer under way --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First phase - creation of daughter page - completed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Second phase - the Culture section is being progressively replaced by a rewritten shorter version. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Section condensed - length tag removed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

alcohol used to stunt growth[edit]

There is a common problem with growing paperwhite (& related?) bulbs indoors: they grow too tall and fall over. In recent years there is a common recommendation to stunt the growth by watering with a solution of up to 10% alcohol. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article.-71.174.190.122 (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

paperwhite species[edit]

Please include a list of the paperwhite species. The article Narcissus (plant) has good content about "'Paperwhite form", but is vague about specifics.-71.174.190.122 (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Narcissus (plant). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Narcissus (plant). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Narcissus (plant). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated "Names and etymology" sections[edit]

Both the Narcissus (plant) and Taxonomy of Narcissus articles have a "Names and etymology" section (here and here respectively). Any chance these could be combined to avoid duplication? I would hazard putting it all at Narcissus (plant) with a link from Taxonomy of Narcissus would be better but what say ye? —  AjaxSmack  15:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why Taxonomy of Narcissus should cover the English language names and their etymology. Since that has the more elaborate coverage that would mean moving stuff from there to here, before removing it from there. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narcissus_(plant)&oldid=1193697325"