Talk:Centaurea cyanus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comments[edit]

While reading Mein Kampf I came across a passage where Adolf Hitler described a symbol used by German pan-nationalist in Austria. He mentioned the corn-flower as that symbol. 168.16.141.62 18:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

---

how much should i water this flower?

"Cornflower" is also the name of a Crayola crayon. :) 66.67.97.228

---

"The blue pigment is protocyanin, which in roses is red." Does no one else find this comment to need a bit more explanation? ... Chenel324 (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Name[edit]

Why is it named "cornflower" if it's not the flower of maize (corn)? Does it grow around maize plants? Badagnani (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Added. Badagnani (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is what is growing in my Iowa garden. It grows like a weed and it is hard to get rid of!!! People who visit do think it is pretty however!!! How long is the bloom season? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.177.114.161 (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

CornflowerCentaurea cyanus – scientific name is unambiguous exact name. "cornflower" is a common name, but it is more exactingly called "common cornflower" to distinguish from other Centaurea species (all of which are at their scientific names, which makes the title and layout of this article at odds with the others). So we have some other cornflowers....as well as chicory sometimes called it, and this species has many other common names. Exactness needs to trump accessibility if the former is compromised. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose this isn't a plant article, there's heraldic, emblematic, etc information on here as well. Seems like a split is in order if you want the plant to be different. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Not a problem, for instance lion has a large section on heraldry,mythology etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It's a very big problem. The heraldic element is not called "Centaurea cyanus", and the lion article is not called "Panthera leo". The heraldic element refers to cornflowers, and the plant portion is about a specific cornflower, As long as the article remains at "cornflower" there is some sense, once it is renamed, you're doing original research in calling the heraldic element "Centaurea cyanus" -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Way too much ambiguity going both ways (too many common names for the plant described here; too many different species with this same common name). I've always heard this called "bachelor's button" in the U.S. That name is unfortunately at the plural Bachelor's buttons as a set index page - it should be singular. First Light (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Cultural information is included in a species article, we do not have Species x (cultural information), so the argument to remove this is not correct. -AfadsBad (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — Cas Liber shows that the common name "cornflower" is ambiguous (experience tells me there are inevitably more "cornflower" species out there, not to mention that corn (maize) has corn flowers), as is also the word "cornflower", that the hatnote already at Cornflower pointing to Cornflower (Redwall) (which leads one to List of Redwall characters, section Cornflower) shows. In addition there are articles for Cornflower blue and Cornflowers (painting). Hamamelis (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We should use WP:COMMONNAME for flower articles wherever possible. For some obscure cases less common flowers there may no common name, in which case of course the scientific name has to be used. But Wikipedia is meant to be accessible to the layman; it's not a scientific treatise aimed as the specialists. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I have replaced the phrase "some obscure cases" with more precise wording. Bermicourt (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
It is simply not true that these are obscure cases. Most plants have no common name, especially as new species are discovered all the time. And the common name one uses depends on what is common to you. I can almost guarantee that "cornflower" is a common name used for more plants than just Centaurea cyanus and chicory species.
I also think people can easily figure out that C. cyanus is the species name, and that "cornflower" is just one of several common names for the species, a name shared by other species, not just C. cyanus. Unless they can't read. In which case, what are they doing reading the article? Hamamelis (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to be sure I wasn't simply expressing my own WP:POV, I looked up Centaurea cyanus in five reference books. The results were: cornflower, cornflower, cornflower, cornflower and ... cornflower. In every case the common name was a large, bold heading and the Latin name was secondary. QED. Bermicourt (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Did you use any reference books that list scientific binomials first in any case? However, for the 350,000 species of angiosperms the vast majority do not have common names at all, many others do not have them in English, so your arguement that "in some obscure cases there may be no common name" is false. -AfadsBad (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
That is a bit of a red herring. I have already implied that if there were no common name, the most common scientific name should be used. But that is not the case for the vast majority of common flowers and certainly not for the this one. Bermicourt (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
It is not a "flower article," though, it is a plant article. There seems to be a lot of confusion generated by simply calling this article by the common name. This article is about a species of flowering plant, by definition, with some evolutionary oddities, all 325,000 species of angiosperms, or flowering plants, have flowers, and the vast majority of these do jot have common names. For commercial flowers, I believe there may be articles about the flower alone, and maybe there is sufficient information about this one to create such an article. This particular article, however, is about the plant, and the flower, biologic and cultural, is part of the plant. Calling this article by the name of its flower alone seems to be confusing, and seems to be implying that the flower is the topic. The plant is the topic. -AfadsBad (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
That's right — Centaurea cyanus is the only commonly used name that describes this precise plant species. The vernacular name "cornflower" is used to describe several species, while there are several different vernacular names used to describe Centaurea cyanus. WP:FLORA was written just for this purpose, plants which have multiple vernacular names, and single vernacular names that describe several different plants. It's also why the most popular garden book ever written for the general public (Sunset Western Garden Guide) uses binomial names rather than the all-too-common and regional vernacular names as titles for their species articles.[1] First Light (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
""cornflower" is used to describe several species". Not according to my five sources; it very precisely is used only to describe C. cyanus. So just place your vote, explain your logic and please let me do the same. Bermicourt (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Reaching consensus requires discussion, so popping up a vote and logic, then asking others to confine themselves to doing the same will not work. Still, you have said your piece, and corrected it, and any response to others' comments is optional. I learned from your post, though, that other editors may also consider the article to be about only part of the plant, the flower, and that this might be useful to clear up before future discussions. Thanks.-AfadsBad (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
All opinions and logical arguments are welcome, Bermicourt. Nobody is trying to stifle yours. Chicory is also called "cornflower," as our cornflower article points out, and as these sources state: [2] [3] The following sources generally and vaguely apply "cornflower" to the entire genus, or to several of the Centaurea species: [4] [5] [6] Some other Centaurea species are called "cornflower" with qualifiers: Centaurea montana is called "perennial cornflower"[7]; Centaurea dealbata is called "persian cornflower"; Centaurea kotschyana is called "Kotschy's cornflower."[8] Centaurea cyanus is the only widely used name that applies solely to the species discussed in our article. First Light (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks folks, and I'm sorry if I came on a little strong! ;) The outcome now appears a foregone conclusion, but if the title doesn't change, it would make sense to have some sort of clarification in the lede along the lines of "this article is about the common cornflower. For other related species see xxxx" or "see the list below" or whatever. As laymen, we may prefer to see common names as titles, but equally we want to be able to learn e.g. that there are other varieties of cornflower and have links to them. Happy editing. Bermicourt (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment - page move discussions seem to be among the most volatile - your comments were mild compared to many I've seen! A move to the species name should include a WP:Hatnote like you recommend, perhaps including a Cornflower (disambiguation) link and page. I now see another plant in a completely different genus called "Native Cornflower". It's a good example of local vernacular, because "native" could only mean "native to Australia", which is where it lives. First Light (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Your comments are useful to the discussion, imo, because I learned something from your approach to the article title. There is a bot that alerts editors to these discussions and, even if you generally disagree, I think your input would be beneficial to Wikipedia, and I hope you continue to contribute. -AfadsBad (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per FirstLight. "Bachelor's button" is the vernacular name I know this plant by, I'm mostly familiar with "cornflower" in the context of cornflower blue. I suspect this may be an WP:ENGVAR thing, with cornflower more common in the UK, and bachelor's button in the US. Here is a reference for another "cornflower", Agrostemma githago. Plantdrew (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support due to potential confusion with other Centaurea species (or the genus itself), chickory, Brunonia australis, etc. as well as cornflower not being the primary common name for Centaurea cyanus in North America.--Melburnian (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Centaurea cyanus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Centaurea cyanus. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Centaurea cyanus. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)