Talk:Taraxacum/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Say, I wonder

Do you think this picture could have a place in the article?

Floaters

I want to add it, but I don't want to just remove someone else's picture in a well-established article. On the other hand, the article is rather full and I don't want to just add it and make more bloat. What do you think?

I think it's a valuable illustration of a part of its life cycle. I would wish the photo were clearer, but I realize that this is an exceedingly difficult shot as well. I'd go for it. Pollinator 02:11, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Well, you have to understand, there was probably less than 1/3 an inch of depth of field in this shot. I was using an 8x zoom camera with a close-up lens on the end. I tried my best though! I'm not too sure where to add it though. One of the pictutes needs to be replaced, because otherwise it will be too cluttered. It's already pushing it.PiccoloNamek 02:17, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Believe me, I DO understand...Pollinator 03:10, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I like the pic and would add it. Marc W. Abel


There seems to be alot of folk medicine and remidies passed off as simple fact and actual medicine in the article. A good going over of these sections is necessary I think.--Deglr6328 06:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Origin

I've always heard that Dandelions were native to Europe/Asia and were spread to the Americas by settlers. This was backed up by a quick search.[1] The article says otherwise so I will go through and change it.--Bkwillwm 19:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

what is a dandiloin used for

My teacher gave me a project to do on dandiloins and i don't know what a dandiloin is used for. Can you please explain it to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.176.214 (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

simpler

It would be nice to have some simple parts in this article, and have it more divided up to make it more accessible. If it is too dense, it will not be useful--Filll 15:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Caffeic Acid

I checked, and that appears to be correct. I would favor leaving it in. I do not know why we should remove it. It is interesting.--Filll 22:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Reading through the Caffeic Acid page, it seems to suggest that Caffeic Acid has shown Carcinogenic and anti-carcinogenic properties, depending on who's research you look at. AlexNifty 12:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

We could remove it if it is too confusing. On the other hand, it is interesting and does point out that "natural" products are not necessarily all safe. If we wanted a to strike a more balanced note, we could also mention its anti-carcinogenic properties. I point out that it is very possible that caffeic acid DOES have both carcinogenic and anti-carcinogenic properties.--Filll 13:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dandelion Wine

There ought to be a mention of this use of the dandelion. —ExplorerCDT 03:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes its a very common use of dandelions and a good diuretic properties. Think outside the box 12:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I just checked and its already been added... Think outside the box 12:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

How to kill weeds

Anyone interested in writing about ways to kill weeds? Bleach, salt?VK35 20:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be. I will add it if i have timeDog jumper100 04:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Tampering with mother nature will get you nowhere. It is the biggest waste of your time that you could ever imagine. Why not do something more productive in the real world than to pick on Dandelions? Dandelion was introduced to our countries as a highly nutritious food from the visiting people. It is an important food for diabetics. The flower is an important food for bees, and when the seeds start happening its important for small birds. Care MUST be taken when removing this plant, that it is done without the use of anything but your bare hands. I am sorry it doesnt look nicer than you would expect, or that you feel that everything in your garden has to conform to a specific look. But using anything toxic on the plant is nothing short of irresponsible, and we have enough of that in the world at the moment thank you. user:philbeer —Preceding comment was added at 23:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a plant which is nearly universally regarded as an unwelcome visitor that will dominate your yard if you let it. Methods of removal - ecologically sound or otherwise - need to be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.20.135 (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea, eat them. They're edible ya know. Well, not so sure about the stems, but the rest is. I would advise boiling or otherwise cooking them first but you can eat them raw.137.118.104.149 (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Cupid's shaving brush

Cupid's shaving brush may be worth merging or redirecting here. - Nabla 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a dandelion, but rather Emilia sonchifolia. I've moved the article to its scientific name.--Curtis Clark 02:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. - Nabla 23:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Life span

Does anyone know the life span of a dandelion? I have observed that picking the flowers seems to weaken them. Is this true? Are they perennials? Answers appreciated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.153.0.243 (talk) I am Greg Nelson.May 27, 2007.

They are perennial. Aelwyn 10:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I also would be interested in knowing about the lifespan. Perennial doesn't necessarily mean they never die, I hope anyway. I have also observed that picking them seems to weaken them, ie. they don't grow as tall and seem to wilt somewhat. Leewrangell 03:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

They do die of course, they're not immortal! Usually herbaceous perennial plants can survive for several years. Picking them surely weakens them. Their source of food are the leaves!

Citing Wikipedia?

I noticed the first citation is a Wikipedia article. Should this be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs) 02:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting articles and sources

I used this to provide a citation & add a bit of info, but it has a lot more good stuff in it. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/living-green/dandelions.html. ColtsScore 15:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Height

The article appears to claim that dandelions do not grow higher than about a foot, but there is a plant in my garden greenhouse which is a good seven feet tall. Is this sufficient as a source to modify the article? Robin S 13:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC) -I think they adapt for survival. I have observed that if you continue to pick the tall flowers before they go to seed the plant gets shorter and shorter till it barely clears my lawn. This practise also seems to weaken them consideralby.(Greg Nelson: May 27, 2007)

Edit: Just discovered that the giant dandelion has recently been uprooted (I last remember seeing it a few months ago, and it's been there for years). I promise however that this is not a hoax! Robin S 13:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen plants that look very similar to dandelions and grow as big as you've described. I don't think they are dandelions though, but may be related. Think outside the box 10:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe it was a Sunflower? Think outside the box 18:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Quite possible a sow-thistle (Sonchus spp.). --Graminophile (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Macrospecies?

I am not a botanist, but I'm having trouble believing there is any such thing as a macrospecies as mentioned in the "Description" section. I'm going to change it to "microspecies" if no one minds. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If you don't know, don't change it.--Graminophile (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It should be microspecies. I've changed it. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Macrospecies is a correct term used to describe the species complexes with in dandelions, the term might be a bit obscure for this page with out a definition. Hardyplants (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No Edit War

I do not want to get into an edit war with Nhelferty, but he or she seems to not want any mention of the results of multiple studies suggesting that caffeinic acid is a carcinogen. Just slashing stuff mindlessly is not helpful. He now seems to have moved up the section heading for his discussion of "antioxidants" to make it far more prominent, rather than a subsection under uses. I think there needs to be some other input here.--Filll 22:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am an innocent standard reader of this page, and this section is definitely inconsistent with the Caffeic Acid page. The Caffeic Acid page is quite clear, the outcome of the carcinogen behaviour depends on the concentration. Please, clarify this. Chatmann (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would be most useful to put the caffeic acid and other nutrients under a heading like "compounds found in dandelions" or something similar. As it is now it is too prominent a mention of something that there are still a lot of questions about. The whole carcinogenic vs. non-carcinogenic part can be left out entirely that way and if readers do what to read about the acid they can go to the page on it. G8briel (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Dandelions are flowers.

It has gotten to the point that dandelions are "Weeds" and is the thing most people wants to "not" grown in their yards. Coming from a very big farm, I played in "yellow fields" that were (and still are) covered with a weed called a Dandelion. I hope they grow in Heaven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.21.64 (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This page isn't a soapbox for your daily thoughts. If it doesn't pertain to the article, comment on it or bring up relevant points, why post here, especially with religious thoughts? Dandelions are also a green and, imo, the leaves are eaten more than the flowers in many parts of the world. -98.154.249.46 (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagged as needing cleanup and unreferenced

There are quite a few sections of this article that need revision. Here are a few issues:

  • Almost every sentence of the introduction begins "The Dandelion".
  • "They are known as pests or weeds to the common person" - define common person.
  • Portions of the description sound like opinion, and no facts are cited.
  • The Dandelion "Clock" is referred to as a "parachute ball" in the "Dandelion Snow" section.
  • The formatting of the Name section appears to be messed up - there is a large gap between the heading and the beginning of the text.
  • The Name section needs cited references - especially with the claims regarding "pissenlit"...
  • The Uses sections sounds like a regular snake oil advertisement. "cleansing tonic for the liver", "purify the blood" are prime examples. A lot of claims are made that I highly doubt would hold up to scientific scrutiny.

75.17.194.3 23:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

common person - would that be The man on the Clapham omnibus?? The modern equivalent is presumably something like the person on the Easyjet. Clean-up of Uses is well overdue imhoPlantsurfer 08:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard the ripe seed head called a "clock" until today. From what I can tell, it comes from a child's game where the number of blows to remove all the seeds being the time. This strikes me as an "un-encyclopedic" word choice, rather like calling an apple stem a "husband-picker" (hold onto the stem and twist once for each letter of the alphabet, your husband's name will start with the letter you said that the stem came off). I'm guessing it's almost never past 3 o'clock and all Williams are doomed to remain single. Myridon (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There can be few native English speakers who have not heard it. The name dandelion clock is referred to in the Oxford English Dictionary, and gets 63,900 hits on Google, so I think you will find it rather well embedded in the culture. Plantsurfer (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Any reason why dandelion clock has not been added to the article (as mentioned here above)? In Britain, at least, it is a common expression. --Robinson weijman (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dandelion word French origin ?

Dandelion ( Dent de Lion in French (tooth of Lion) ). Do you think, the origin of the name is from old french language, I've heard that that it could be the shape of the edge of leaves could remind some teeth of lion. Can somebody search this ?

many thanks.

This article I found confirms just that: http://www.gardenology.org/wiki/Dandelion --Weedgarden (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

from the article: "found in most gardens. during the summer months" -- I find it hard to believe that dandelions are found in gardens in all parts of the world. I know of them in Europe; beyond that I have no idea. Could someone clarify? --Tarquin

Dandelions are present in America, Australia, New Zealand, India, China and Canada and are seen in Japanese recipes - is there anywhere they aren't? Maybe desert climates? They are very widespread because they are used as medicine and cuisine. Many people don't see them as weeds. --rmhermen

Thanks. I just thought we should check. They're weeds in my garden... ;-) -- Tarquin

point taken about weeds. NPOVed to say considered as weeds. Tarquin

RM, I live in a desert climate (Clovis, NM) and they thrive here. Marc W. Abel

They are widespread in the Western Cape of South Africa which has a warm-temperate Mediterranean-type climate. I would doubt dandelions would grow in the Tropics though: I did not see any in Cuba for example. Booshank 17:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In South-West Australia I never saw dandelions but cape weed was commonly called dandelion: perhaps that's what you have in the Western Cape of South Africa? Mind you it was thirty years ago, and for all I know "real" dandelions have arrived there too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campolongo (talk • contribs) 12:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Basically, it's a temperate zone plant. A friend of mine in Southern California tried and failed to grow dandelions; apparently they need winter. I've noted that in the article. Does anyone know where they originated? Vicki Rosenzweig

Several websites call them of "Eurasian" origin not that that helps much. They were apparently first noted by Arab writers in the 10th century but it didn't mention where. Arabs were widespread by then too. They are listed as growing in Australia and Mexico so I would have thought they would grow in southern California too. The University of California (http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7469.html) says the dandelions grow year round in the entire state except in the mountains. This page aslo says that dandelions go back to Roman times as a medicine and food. --rmhermen

Is there a set policy on the gardening section of the 'pedia? We have recipes, so should we have gardening tips? I can say that dandelions are hard to get rid of; they have very long roots. I find the only way to keep dandelions under control is:

  • catch them early when they only have a few leaves
  • rip off any flowers that form to prevent seeding
  • tackle the big ones with trowel or spade. There's a weeding tool like a long v-shaped trowel that's very good for them too. -- Tarquin

It seems if any root fragments are missed; new plants will grow from them: turning one to five. Can anyone cofirm this.? (G Nelson)

If you do not eradicate them, you are in for a root awakening! -phma

Is a description of the plant needed? Not being any sort of biologist, I've come up with this so far:

The plant grows as a cluster of narrow, fairly dark green leaves, up to (?)25cm. Flowers grow on firm stems of up to (?) 40cm

But "firm" is the wrong word. "self-supporting"? hmm. Tarquin

Well, also the leaves grow outward from a center over the taproot; and the stem extends from the center too. The leaves are oval with wavy edges ... not dissimilar to the inner leaves on romaine lettuce, but laid flat on the ground. Also, breaking the stem releases a milky substance. Just what I remember from high school, when I had a yard.  :-) --KQ 19:26 Aug 19, 2002 (PDT)

Is the table overlapping the text for any body else? This is happening with all right or left aligned tables in IE 5 on Win 2k. --mav

I believe this problem is specific to Internet Exploder. It looks lovely in Mozilla. --Brion

Cooking Dandelions

Dandelions make a great free meal. Not only are they high in nutrition and very good for you - they also taste great! Here's what to do to make your own dandelion delicacy: Find some flowers in your yard or field that are not right by the road and all the polluting traffic. Young plants are a little less bitter but older ones will do fine. With a knife, cut the whole plant at the top of the root so that is comes out of the ground intact. You should snap off the yellow flowers that have already opened up, but be sure to leave any unopened buds - these are the tastiest part! Once you have given your pickings a good washing to get off all the dirt, stick them in a pot with enough water to just cover and boil until they are nice and soft. When the water turns yellow replace it with fresh water and reboil. This will get the bitterness out. When they are all done they will have the consistency of cooked spinach. Strain and dress with butter, a squeeze of lemon, or vinegar. Mmmm. Nothing tastes better than a free meal! Another option for the dish is to mix the dandelion with little pieces of fried bacon. This enhances the taste of the dandelion.

This is hardly encyclopedic but could be reworded and made into a real recipe under cooking dandelions. --mav

It's now under How to cook dandelions. - Montréalais

I added to the article that they are edible. Maybe more people will begin to eat them! --User:Weedgarden

Sorry, I've gone for an image prune on this article... I don't think it needs a ==More images== section. "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files". - MykReeve T·C 20:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I restored the image of the halictid pollinator, as it is needed to illustrate an important part of the life cycle. Studying plants without reference to their pollinators is not very good botany. There needs to be more pollination info on this and most plant pages. Also needed is a photo illustrating actual seed dispersion in process - a tough photo to take, but it would be a good illustration. Pollinator 21:20, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
In the article it says "with numerous apomictic microspecies". Actually i thought they were all asexual. If they are asexual why would they need pollinators? Is there a source that indiactes that some species of dandelion are sexual? Otherwise we should axe the photo of the halictid pollinator since it is very misleading. David D. 23:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

They are not exclusively apomictic, at least most zones of southern Europe. The presence of mixed sexual-apomictic populations seems to be linked to higher temperatures, but the subject is still being studied. It seems that sexual and apomictic population still have a genetic contact at some degree, this is why all dandelion flowers are so coloured, produce nectar and attract pollinators. I think this can be interesting, do you think I should write it in the main article? I lost the link that proved this completely, but see this. (Excuse me for my poor english) Aelwyn 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Nature of leaves

Even File:Dandelion2500ppx.JPG and File:Eightyfivedandelion.JPG give a grossly inadequate view of the leaf structure, in keeping with the accompanying article's gross neglect of the subtopic of the function of the dentate leaf. My uninformed conjecture is that the indentations serve (on the assumption that leaf continues to grow near its base, not just from the tip) to push over again grass blades that have escaped around a side of the dandelion leaf after having been bent over by that leaf. If i am right, this explains why a long, not wide, leaf is efficient for the plant: it shades many grass blades, that otherwise would be vertical, from both flourishing and shading its own leaves, complementing its strategy of producing, early in the season, copious seed that disperses inches above the short early grass and disperses into the immediate surroundings. Seems like a good example of strategy shaping structure, and (unless i'm just wrong) i'd be surprised if the plant is not a powerful teaching tool.
--Jerzy•t 20:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

I was going to post a entry on the meaning of its offical name Taraxacum officinale, does it really mean official remedy for disorders? I can't confirm it.

See the page for Taraxacum officinale. Not an "official" remedy, but a plant that is used in the pharmacy (Latin officina). Nadiatalent (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Species info on the genus page

I'd like to propose that the entire section called Properties and Uses should not be on the genus page, it belongs only with Taraxacum officinale. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not an invasive species?

I'm not surprised that dandelions could be a valuable, attractive wildflower and salad green in their native range, but why is there no mention at all, anywhere in the article text, that this is an extremely aggressive invasive species artificially introduced by humans into most of its range and now causing harm to many ecosystems around the world? It is considered one of the most noxious and harmful invasive species according to National Geographic, yet the article only goes on about how great and underappreciated it is. I agree that all species should be valued for their intrinsic value and useful properties, but this article is one-sided and has a huge gaping hole. Refusing to even acknowledge the harm caused by introducing exotic species is irresponsible. A well-researched, responsible, and balanced article would at least mention that species which are valuable and important to one ecosystem can become extremely invasive and destructive when artificially transported to a different ecosystem. The Taraxicum officinale page doesn't admit that it is invasive and harmful on several continents, either. -- 97.127.94.120 (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit - that means you too. If you have the article to back up what you're saying feel free to add something to that effect with proper references. Obviously if we haven't read the National Geographic article we won't know what's in it. Nobody gets paid for writing these articles, we're all just volunteers who put them together from the information we can find. If you look at the top of this page you'll see that this article is rated "C" which means it's still under development - so, don't complain about what others haven't done - fix it! Richerman (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a bit on the Taraxacum officinale page, e.g. "a nearly cosmopolitan weed". Do you have an article that proves that it is harmful, rather than just an opportunist weed where there has been human disturbance? Nadiatalent (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


Is any part of the plant toxic ?

e.g. can you just pick a dandelion and eat the flower? (even though it might taste bad)

Yes. My Mom told me about this crazy woman who lived in their nieghborhood who used to eat danelions. I don't think they are good for you though.
I eat kilos of dandelions every spring, they taste very good (cooked as spinach). Someone use the flowers to make a syrup. I don't like it very much its bitter-sweet, but it's definitely safe to eat. Only be sure to be able to recognise the plant (extremely easy). Aelwyn 08:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The flower and the leaves are both very nutritious. You can also make a kind of coffee from the root. Cooking and roasting however destroy nutrients. The taste may be intense and might take a while to understand but only if you chew it properly and arent consuming any excito-toxins. The flower is an important food for the bees, so i just stick to eating the nutritious leaves and make sure there is plenty to go around. Why buy weak vegetables when you could have the best ever in your backyard for free? However, sprayed foods are very toxic and should be avoided at all cost. You can generally tell if something has been sprayed if it is near a road or foot path. Out in the wild people generally dont care to poision foods that dont look enticing. Philbeer23:33, 27 November 2007
The dandelions in this part of the world (Pacific Northwest) are very bitter, to the point of being unpalatable. They are so unpalatable that they get spat out on tasting. I have heard, however, the secret to making dandelions palatable, is simply that you must soak them in salt water before you taste them. Soaking is supposed to get rid of the awful taste. 216.99.219.178 (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Allergies

The article mentions that, although dandelions are typically seen as weeds, they in fact are beneficial to lawns. I always assumed that the main reason for wanting to rid your lawn of dandelions was the allergies that they can cause when the seeds are flown about in the air. Anything on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveguga (talk • contribs) 12:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Allergic rhinitis, commonly known as "hay fever", is a reaction to inhaling thousands of microscopic pollen grains or particles of dust (not seeds) which irritate the airways and produce an allergic reaction. The seeds of a dandelion with their parachutes attached are far too big to inhale without you noticing and, if you did, it would only be one or two and I would think you would cough them up fairly quickly. Richerman (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

ID please

File:Taraxacum_officinale_in_Pacifica.JPG Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Its does not look like Taraxacum officinale, without images of the foliage its not going to be easy to ID the correct genus, let alone species.Hardyplants (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The id that it already has, Picris echioides looks plausible. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
They must have found someone that new it, because it was named Taraxacum_officinale. I am not familiar with Picris echioides, I looked up some pictures and like the prickly look of the stems. Hardyplants (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
It is certainly cute. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I see that the pronunciation is given as /ˌtæɹa.ˈk͡səkɯm/. This indicates primary stress on the third syllable, secondary stress on the first. This sounds weird to me, and I have never heard it. Indeed, it sounds so weird that I am sure I would have noticed if I ever had heard it. It is also highly implausible that a polysyllabic word should have the primary stress on a schwa. But I thought I'd better check before changing it; maybe somewhere it really is pronounced like that.

Also, the IPA includes a dot, whose meaning is not explained on the IPA page. I will remove it, unless someone can explain its presence. Maproom (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This has now been put right by Curtis Clark. Maproom (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

What about mentioning that children like blowing dandelion seeds?

I wonder if it would be a good idea to mention, that in the USA at least as far as I know, that kids tend to enjoy blowing on the dandelion seeds to watch them fly. I wonder if maybe kids in the UK have some kind of fairy mythology that ties into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.228.177 (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture/development

I'd quite like the article to have a short series of photos, maybe at the bottom, showing the development of the plant/flower, as it took me many years of studying the plant in the garden to realise the petals didn't turn into the floaters! I'm willing to go out and take the photos if needed, if they aren't available, but I thought I'd ask here first as people seem to be aiming to keep the photos to a minimum. Skittle 22:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that if the information they provide is useful, there won't be a problem. The issue isn't so much with too many pictures, it's with too many unnecessary pictures. Presumably the two pictures currently at the top (the 'clock' and the open flower) would either fit in your sequence or be replaced by your pictures anyway. A series that showed bud to seed metamorphosis would also be useful in the flower article as well. Matt Deres 16:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. I shall have to get a decent camera and do the job. Good pictures at the top. Skittle 10:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Okay. It's easy to find nice images of the full flower Image:Löwenzahn-JJ5.jpg Image:Taraxacum plant.jpg and of the full clock Image:Dandelion clock.jpg Image:Taraxacum_officinalis DSC02041.JPG Image:Taraxacum_officinale0.jpg. There's a nice one showing the dried flower still attached to the emerging clock Image:Dandelion head.jpg and an interesting one that shows two stages of clock development at once Image:Taraxacum 2005 spring 005.jpg. There are even a couple showing nearly empty clocks, which show the bobbly top the seeds attach to (I prefer the second one) Image:Gewöhnlicher Löwenzahn Taraxacum officinale agg. detail.jpg Image:Paardebloem zaadpluis.jpg.

What I still need are pictures of the flower bud and opening flower, possibly of the dying flower too. I shall see what I can do. Just off to learn about sizing of images! Skittle 10:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The picture that shows a closed bud of dandelion is actually a closed flower of coldsfoot (Tussilago) a wet area plant, as demonstrated by the background of horsetail (Equisetum) another wet place loving plant. Tussilago seems to be an invasive in the USA. The Tussialgo has some bracts along its stem (shown on this article picture) whereas the dandelion stem is smooth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcaime2 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a lovely photo, but indeed not the right plant. Deleted. (Also, it shouldn't be described as a "flower".) Nadiatalent (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is to do with development, but not pictures: I looked at this entry to find out when dandelions flowered and when they produced seeds, but no infornation about the timing is given. Would a general indication of the time of year be possible or helpful? Eg 'flowers in early Spring' or 'produces clock-heads in late Summer/early Autumn' The dipper (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by The dipper (talk • contribs) 02:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really. In some areas they flower in the spring, but mowing, warm weather, plenty of soil moisture etc. can also bring them back into flower. Nadiatalent (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem with link

External link 10 is for sale. Can someone delete it or replace it with a better source? 20tongenious (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"A herb" or "an 'erb"

I've reverted the change to "an herb" from "a herb", which was made with the edit summary "US English is preferred to UK, except for UK-specific topics". The preference for US English is contradicted by WP:ENGVAR which states "The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other." The wiktionary entry also states clearly that dropping the h is to make "an 'erb" is not universally used in the U.S. I would also remark that if a majority of editors in the English wikipedia start to impose Americanese as the only acceptable spelling except on a few pages, then I for one will stop contributing to what I had hoped was an international and collaborative effort. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Most sources agree that plant is not native to the Americas

The info below can easily be found and According to the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, the common dandelion originated in Asia and Europe. The Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association explains that the dandelion probably found its way to the North America on the Mayflower, and that settlers likely brought the plant along for its medicinal qualities.

Original Distribution: Though the dandelion has been carried from place to place since before written history, it can at least be said that the plant is native to Europe and Asia. The earliest recordings can be found in Roman times and use has been noted by the Anglo Saxon tribes of Britain and the Normans of France. In the tenth and eleventh centuries there is mention of dandelions used for medicinal purposes in the works of Arabian physicians. and Site and Date of Introduction: Dandelions have spread throughout the northern hemisphere for so long that it is difficult to determine their nonnative status. It has been noted however, that the Puritans found dandelions to be so useful that they brought them to settle in the new county.

Could some please edit and reference the part that says: "They are native to Eurasia and North and South America," This is a statement that is not considered to be fact. Nearly all sources attest it was likely introduced by European settlers shortly after their discovery of the Americas. 76.105.95.139 (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The sentence you quote refers to "Taraxacum ... a large genus of flowering plants", not to the common dandelion. It is supported by the source cited. Maproom (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
It occurs to me that you are not responsible for the confusion between "Taraxacum" and "dandelion". The dandelion, despite being the world's most widespread and best known wildflower[citation needed], does not have an article of its own. Instead, dandelion is a redirect to Taraxacum. This feels like a mistake. Maproom (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not a mistake. The word "dandelion" is used for most, if not all, of the taraxacaca. Richerman (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Then I am tempted to add a gallery of pictures of different species to the Taraxacum#Selected_species section, to make it a bit more obvious that this article is about more than one species. Would that be a good idea? Maproom (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that would be good. Also, it would be good if the lead images were not Taraxacum officinale but some rather different-looking species. Also, I've just created a request at Talk:Dandelion_(disambiguation) to change that problematic redirection of Dandelion to Taraxacum, by renaming Dandelion (disambiguation) to Dandelion. Opinions are invited there. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I have added a gallery. It includes images of the inflorescences (flowers) of the species listed above it, where I could easily find a good color picture. It can easily be improved – for instance, by cropping some of the images to make them all the same size. I may get round to doing this myself, but I'll have to start by learning how crop works. Maproom (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Common name

I am placing the "common name" of this species at the front of the lead per Wikipedia naming. While I appreciate scientific naming, Wikipedia has shown over-overwhelmingly to support the common name over that of scientific classification. Our esteemed Wiki-lawyers have done their job well in trying to make this confusing but ultimately this is arguably the name as used in most reliable sources. I am not, however, on a renaming crusade. At the same time I am against editors renaming against the common name, moving to some "project" decided name that does not reflect common usage, or blocking (attempting to block) efforts to move to a common name. At this point I am simply making a long standing Wikipedia consensus correction of alternative names, listed in bold, early in the lead. Maybe at some point I will be able to make these corrections as routine maintenance without controversy. Otr500 (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is not about a species, but a genus. However its member species all have names like "Korean dandelion", so I won't disagree. Maproom (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I had observed that the name was used with broad application in many species and although I did not look at all of them, but ventured into some sub-species and micro-species, just enough to realize that the name was common among very many, I had come to that conclusion. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Native in South America?

I don't think Taraxacum are native in South America, although some species have been introduced there. If I am wrong, please provide a source.Plantsurfer 10:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Seed dispersal

"A number of species of Taraxacum are seed dispersed ruderals that rapidly colonize disturbed soil...". I would have thought one of the reasons dandelions are so successful is their ability to grow in undisturbed soil. Of course they will grow in disturbed soil too, but they are not usually the most visible first weeds to grow there. I may rewrite the section - need to find refs first. Newburyjohn (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Coltsfoot in False Dandelions

@PlantSurfer: I had added Coltsfoot Tussilago in the False Dandelion section. on the Tussilago Wiki page it states that they are similar to Dandelions. We have coltsfoot here where I live and people call them Dandelions because they are so similar and easy to confuse with Dandelions. PlantSurfer removed the coltsfoot but I would like to suggest that coltsfoot be put back in the False Dandelions since it is already listed on its own page as similar.Pubwvj (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Where I live people don't call coltsfoot dandelions, but that is hardly the point. There are a number of dandelion-like plants with yellow dandelion-like flowers, many with milky latex and leaves in a basal rosette. That is uncontroversial and can be supported with a source. Coltsfoot can be distinguished from dandelions by the lack of a basal leaf rosette or milky latex, by flowers that emerge long before the leaves, leaves that are much larger and quite different from those of dandelion, and are not produced in a basal rosette, flowers with ray and disc florets (whereas dandelions do not have disc florets) etc. Your claim that people where you live call them dandelions is not notable. However, if you think the point you made is notable and can find a reliable secondary source that supports it you are more than welcome to include it in the article. Plantsurfer 15:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@PlantSurfer: The point isn't that people do or don't call coltsfoot dandelions. The point is on the Wiki page for Coltsfoot (Tussilago) it clearly states that Coltsfoot are confused with Dandelions. Thus why I added Coltsfoot to the False Dandelion section. The source is Wiki. Either the Coltsfoot page should have Dandelion removed from it or Coltsfoot should be added to the False Dandelion section of this Dandelion page. People do confuse the two so when they're coming to Wiki trying to identify what they're seeing it helps to have the cross reference. Pubwvj (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

A second point is that your edit rendered the subsequent sentence inaccurate, since coltsfoot does not have branched flower stems. Plantsurfer 18:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@PlantSurfer: Then by all means let's edit the sentence so that it is accurate. Perhaps splitting it into two sentences is the right way to do it. How would you like to word it? Pubwvj (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

so, I think the best thing would be to leave the existing text unchanged and add a third sentence something like "Early-flowering dandelions may be distinguished from coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara) by their basal rosette of leaves, their lack of disc florets and the absence of scales on the flowering stem." For this you can cite [1] Plantsurfer 18:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks. Pubwvj (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Place for Pic?

Wondering if this picture has any place in the article. Thanks.—TripWire talk 14:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Seedhead

Cancer

Recent resarch suggests that the root extract might cause cancer cells to "commit suicide" http://www.canada.com/health/Windsor+scientists+land+grant+study+dandelions+effect+cancer/6488106/story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.234.221 (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm researching about cancer cures because it's killing my wife. I came across articles in the University of Windsor, Canada website from last year which indicate that they received permission to go ahead with clinical human trials of a concentrated form of dandelion extract. I thought this might be worth adding to the page.ReveurGAM (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Why not the common name?

Is there a compelling reason this article is titled with a taxonomic name, rather than using the commonly recognizable name of dandelion? I came across this page and was immediately confused about that. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no obvious reason not to rename the article. WP:COMMONNAME suggests that it should be renamed: "Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." Applying WP:GOOGLETEST as suggested in WP:COMMONNAME shows that there are ~4.7M hits for "Taraxacum", and ~122M (more than 25x more) for "dandelion". I would move the article myself, but I'm unable to for some reason, so I filed a move request. Stephen Hui (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
It would probably be better to avoid a move. Common names are generally better suited for individual species, which this is not, and dandelion is ambiguous. It can mean the genus, or it can specifically mean Taraxacum officinale as mentioned at the top of this article as part of the redirect description. Under WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION, we generally defer to the scientific name when there's ambiguity and the the redirects handle that appropriately currently. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. After two relists and nearly seven weeks of discussion, still don't quite see general agreement below to move this article's title from the scientific name to a vernacular name. As is usual with no-consensus outcomes, editors can strengthen their arguments and try again in a few months to garner consensus for this title change. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  22:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Taraxacum → Dandelion – The article for dandelions uses the scientific name of the plant, Taraxacum. WP:COMMONNAME explicitly discourages this: "Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." Applying WP:GOOGLETEST as suggested in WP:COMMONNAME shows that there are ~4.7M hits for "Taraxacum", and ~122M (more than 25x more) for "dandelion". I would move the article myself, but I'm unable to for some reason. Stephen Hui (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Stephen Hui and Kingofaces43: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @67.14.236.193: since they commented on this previously. Stephen Hui (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Maproom and Otr500: since they also commented on this previously. Stephen Hui (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This one isn't uncontroversial, and moving articles with a scientific name to a more ambiguous common name is a perennial issue that often results in move protection like this one. Consensus in a move discussion would be needed for any sort of action here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous discussions. Summarizing a previous comment before this move discussion was opened and my above comment was transcribed here:
Common names are generally better suited for individual species, which this is not, so dandelion is ambiguous. It can mean the genus, or it can specifically mean Taraxacum officinale as mentioned at the top of this article as part of the redirect description. If someone searches the term dandelion, we don't know if they are looking for the specific common weed species, or the group in general. Under WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION, we generally defer to the scientific name when there's ambiguity and the the redirects handle that appropriately currently. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Just tacking on a little update, but I originally did not mention WP:FLORA, which is our defining guideline on this subject that generally says defer to the scientific name unless we have strong consensus that ambiguity issues, etc. are addressed in common name usage. Taraxacum officinale technically also gets called dandelion (and common dandelion) in addition to the genus as a whole.[2][3][4], so that's where the problem in WP:PRECISION policy comes in. Outside of this specific move discussion, I'm fine with Taraxacum officinale becoming common dandelion and assessing the other species on a case-by-case basis for common names. However, there's just too much ambiguity with genus and species sharing the same common name to use that single word alone in a species article or this current genus-level article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. I'm not buying the ambiguity argument, saying that "dandelion" could refer to any species of Taraxacum or just one in particular is really the same difference. T. officinale is already linked in the lead as one of the two most common species, and I think that's enough. PC78 (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Uh, that's a huge difference between a whole genus and a single species. As has come up on this talk page before, people mistakenly think this is the species page, and changing the name would cause more confusion in that regard. The current title here makes it clear this is a genus page rather than a species page. There's really no way around that in terms of WP:COMMONNAME policy.
If dandelion is going to be used as a common name elsewhere instead while avoiding the ambiguity problems, then Taraxacum officinale could become common dandelion without ambiguity issues, but that isn't for this page to decide. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
a) Can you please point me to instance(s) of "people mistakenly think(ing) this is the species page"? I could only find one instance of someone being slightly confused, and they subsequently agreed that "its member species all have names like "Korean dandelion", so I won't disagree (with using the common name)". (I pinged them earlier to weigh in on this discussion.)
Stephen Hui: about halfway down the article, there is a gallery of the flowers of six Taraxacum species, of various colors and shapes. I added this to the article in late August 2014 with the primary purpose of making it clear to casual readers that the article is about the whole genus Taraxacum, not just about the species T. officinale. Now as then the lead includes the statement "The common name dandelion ... is given to members of the genus", and dandelion redirects to this article. I recall there being some confusion at the time, in the minds of users who had reached this article by looking for information about the species which they, like many English speakers, thought of as "the dandelion". Some evidence of such confusion can be seen here. Maproom (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
b) You've repeatedly asserted that "dandelion" is synonymous with T. officinale specifically. Do you have any sources for this other than the assertion in this article itself, which was added nine years ago without a source, and not touched since? Where people make distinctions between T. officinale and T. erythrospermum, including in the aforementioned Talk page conversation, more often than not they seem to use the name "common dandelion" for T. officinale. Stephen Hui (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Kingofaces43: If all species of Taraxacum are commonly refered to as dandelions then it's an appropriate name for the article. Since the redirect already brings users here, I don't see the value in trying to second guess what people are actually looking for when they can find what they need from reading the article. It's not like the genus and species are distinct, unrelated topics. PC78 (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
That's glossing over the current ambiguity problems though. The redirect is here not because it's the most likely search target, but because of the ambiguity and the genus page being the first logical step in a search. If we flip it around and have the most common species as the target (though not the only major species), we're starting narrow and asking if searchers wanted something broader. Usually you want to start broad and work your way down in searches.
As for genus and species, they are distinct topics. One is the group, and the species is the most common due to its invasiveness. The only time we really can say genus and a species aren't distinct is when it's a monotypic genus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Stephen, in addition to Maproom's comments, Talk:Taraxacum/Archive_1#Species_info_on_the_genus_page is something that still needs to be addressed, but information specific to species is intermingled as something broadly about the genus. As for T. officinale, its common name is the common dandelion. Common frequently gets dropped in vernacular (making sorting through common names in public usage tricky and why "Google tests" are not recommended. You don't have to look very far at all to find resources on the species (even going for higher quality university extension resources too) just being called dandelion as well.[5][6][7] That's why this is a prime ambiguity concern with both the genus and species having the same name used sometimes. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia currently has articles on the genus Taraxacum, on the species Taraxacum officinale, and on various other species such as Taraxacum albidum. All nice clear unambiguous titles. The name "dandelion" may refer to any of these, most commonly the first two. Why use an ambiguous title when an unambiguous one is available? Maproom (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I think clarity of the main article's title (Taraxacum/Dandelion in this case) should take precedence over that of the child articles' titles (T. officinale/Common dandelion and T. albidum here). Having said that, it's clear that there's no consensus for an article move, so I'm not going to belabor the point. Thanks, Stephen Hui (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as very clearly put by Maproom above. DuncanHill (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - if dandelion is a good enough for a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to the genus page, then its good enough to consider as the WP:COMMONNAME. -- Netoholic @ 04:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support There's clearly a trade-off at play here between WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, with the current name being more precise, but the proposed name being more recognizable and (arguably) more natural. But in the final accounting, I think 'dandelion' comes out ahead. I'm not too concerned about the genus/species ambiguity because:
  1. The current hatnote link to Taraxacum officinale and the first two sentences (which basically say "This is a genus consisting of many plant species, all of which are commonly known as dandelions. The two most common species are X and Y") do a good job of addressing the ambiguity head-on
  2. When an average reader searches for 'dandelion' are they looking for information about the genus Taraxacum or about the species Taraxacum officinale? I think this is a false dilemma. The average reader is probably not aware of these as distinct entities. They've heard about and seen things called 'dandelions', but don't know if these all correspond to a single species, or a group of closely related species, or if it's a label applied to a bunch of plant species that are superficially similar but not all closely related (e.g. thistle). The Taraxacum article is a good place to send such readers, because while it documents the genus, it also works well as a sort of WP:BROADCONCEPT article on the fuzzy concept of 'dandelions' as a whole.
Also, in terms of WP:COMMONNAME, I think it's telling that the term 'dandelion' appears much more frequently in the text of the article than 'taraxacum' (about 40 to 8, not counting references, infobox, or references to individual species names). Colin M (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
One problem is that WP:FLORA is pretty clear not to use WP:COMMONNAME like that. It doesn't matter how much more dandelion pops up in sources vs. Taraxacum with the ambiguity problem where both this genus and and individual species are referred to as simply dandelion in sources. If sources only referred Taraxacum officinale as common dandelion and not simply dandelion, there wouldn't be as much of a policy and guideline problem with calling this genus article dandelion since the recognizability argument overlaps with the species people see in their yard too much.
The genus name Taraxacum isn't fuzzy at all, nor are the individual common names for species like common dandelion where they are more applicable, so if someone is really interested in common names, that energy should be focused on the species level in this subject, not the more ambiguous genus level. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the common name for the genus is Taraxacum, it is by definition the recognised name. The concept sits within probably the most well defined and agreed cross referencing ever elaborated. Dandelion is a term for a local plant, quite lovely in the context of childhood memories, for example, an association with a moment of delight when shown a plant and it is given a name. This article is not about loose conceptions and local context. cygnis insignis 07:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. It is the common name, I don't think that's really in dispute. The question is about whether it is appropriate to use the common name in this case. I think that it is, as readers will be overwhelmingly searching by this subject's common name. The convenience of the average reader outweighs the objections raised above. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The common name for what? If you mean of the genus, which this article is about, dandelion is also the common name for Taraxacum officinale[8][9][10], which excludes this page from being called dandelion at the least. There's really no way around that for this article at least, and in terms of forming WP:CONSENSUS, saying it's just the common name won't cut it when that doesn't address the underlying problems with the move based in policy and guideline. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Per other "support !votes that include WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, and even WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. There really is no dispute on what the subject is more commonly called. It doesn't seem that the 2008 move request and move, although likely with consensus at the time, gives clear precedence of a naming convention over-riding a more commonly used and understood naming that is likely supported by a more broad community consensus. Something being a "perennial issue" can mean there is valid reasoning for continually seeking a name change. There are many ways to obviate confusion other than a strict adherence to a project naming criterion regardless of any common name as evidenced by sources. Advanced innuendos and imputations aside, a name as is commonly found used in sources should be considered over the scientific name or what some of us "common folk" might use. I don't have an issue with a name "defaulting" to a scientific name, or if there is ambiguity, in use of scientific names but common sense shows we should not be so wrapped up as to lose perspective. Otr500 (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I did not intend or see where I impugned the integrity of others, advance innuendos or imputations. I love all the names and reasons for their being, the sources allow for any name to be as accurately discussed as is possible and I do a lot of that, any other interpretation is a grotesque misunderstanding and this us-and-them mentality is contrary to our goals. cygnis insignis 18:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The subject of this article is the genus Taraxacum. "Dandelion" is an ambiguous term with respect to the species Taraxacum officinale. Common names (WP:COMMONAME) have a term of art sense for organisms. Wikipedia does not routinely use "common names" for other fields; patella is the title for the article about the kneecap bone. Is there any evidence that the title Taraxacum is a problem for readers? (and if readers are ill-served by the title Taraxacum would they not be better served by having "dandelion" as the title for Taraxacum officinale)? Plantdrew (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Edit to add the NAMINGCRITERIA rundown.
PRECISION; Taraxacum is the precise title for the concept of the genus. Dandelion can refer to the genus or the most common species.
CONSISTENCY; around 99% of plant articles use scientific names as titles. Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia with several hundred articles on plants. Wikipedia has 60,000+ articles on plants and there is no prospect of consistently using vernacular names as titles.
CONCISENESS; both titles are 9 character words.
RECOGNIZABILITY. More people will recognize "dandelion" than "Taraxacum", but recognizability says "name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area". The crux there; what is the subject area and subject area? Is the subject the constellation of plants that may be called dandelions, or the taxonomic genus Taraxacum? Is the subject area "plants everybody has heard of" or "botany"? Wikipedia has thousands of titles that mean nothing to people not familiar with their subjects. What is GIAT LG1 or MP6? Should we append a term (contrary to CONCISENESS) to make GIAT LG1 or MP6 somewhat recognizable to people who've never heard of them before? What exactly is the problem for readers searching for "dandelion", landing on an article title Taraxacum, reading it and learning something?
NATURALNESS; ties back into RECOGNIZABILITY and the subject of the article. People who are interested in the precise concept of the genus Taraxacum will search and link to that title. People who search/link "dandelion" may not know exactly what they want. Plantdrew (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - "dandelion" is the overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME, and the argument that it isn't precise enough is made rather redundant by the fact that "dandelion" already redirects to this page. Scientific naming is good for genuine ambiguous cases, perhaps where a term means different things in different locales. But that isn't the case here and we should be sticking to our article titling policies.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
You're basically detailing why we should not be changing the title per our article titling policies instead. You say dandelion is the overwhelming unambiguous common name, which is entirely unsourced in this discussion. The sources that have been discussed clearly show that dandelion is also used as the common name for an individual species, which as you say, is a genuine ambiguous case. These type of support !votes without really delving into sources violate our policies and guidelines on titles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
":My point was that although there is some ambiguity, it is between a topic and its related subtopic. That's a very different scenario than if there was an entirely unconnected species with the same name. See for example Football (a WP:BROADCONCEPT article covering all codes) vs Association football, American football, Australian rules football etc. each of which is actually just called "football" in its particular domain. And, as already noted, it is frequent in zoology topics to name the wider article after the common name, e.g. Ostrich and Common ostrich. There is no reason for this case not to follow suit.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Do remember WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in terms of pointing out other articles (in part apples to oranges because that's a whole family instead of genus with only two extant species). There's basically been no solid justification given so far so going to less ambiguous to more ambiguous, and there's a lot of supports like below that have to essentially be ignored by the closer due to WP:!VOTE. If for some reason this was closed as move, such a move could be immediately undone to make way for Taraxacum officinale to be titled dandelion instead per sources under the same reasoning. That's why people wanting a move are glossing over a lot of important details about WP:COMMONNAME and WP:FLORA. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, but barring that, split. This article can and should be moved and re-cast as an article about the things we generally call "dandelions". Barring that (if the concerns of WP:PRECISION end up controlling), we should eliminate the redirect and just wholesale create an article called Dandelion. Red Slash 18:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support per the Guinea pig example at COMMONNAME. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Taraxacum officinale is the common dandelion, Taraxacum is the general dandelion. The scientific name belongs in the lede sentence but not necessarily in the title. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
This personal opinion directly contradicts the sources already listed that specifically call Taraxacum officinale just dandelion for the common name. For better or worse, that is the reality we have to deal with in naming. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Not to my reading. I see the three sources you list above. Taraxacum officinale is the dandelion. If you want to fuss about common or general, it makes no difference to the proposal. Dandelion is not rigorously defined as the Taraxacum officinale species, but usually is by sources using false precision. Do you have reliable sources that say other taraxacum are not dandelions? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support either 1) the proposed move; or 2) turning Dandelion into a disambiguation page. I am not sure whether "Dandelion" is clear enough to refer primarily to the genus, but if it is it shouldn't merely be a primary redirect, because "Dandelion" is clearly the common name. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
regarding option 2): I think a WP:BROADCONCEPT article (as suggested by Red Slash above) would be preferable to a dab page. Colin M (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA; see others' comments above for details. That "dandelion" (alone) refers to both Taraxacum officinale and Taraxacum as a whole makes the name highly ambiguous; this should be made even clearer in the intro of this article. —  AjaxSmack  18:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


Comments

@Stephen Hui: First, you really should combine your Nom and "support" !vote. As the nominator it is understood that you support the move so a second "support" reporting could be misunderstood as !voting twice. Also, you have conceded twice (I think) that consensus is against a name change. I have not weighed in but at present it shows valid arguments at 3 versus 3. I am giving comments at this time because I have not reviewed this. There are some things that need mentioning. You (Stephen) are correct and I feel 100% (+) that articles generally should be found at the common name and generally broad community consensus has supported this.
I don't just jump on some name changing band wagon because of a few reasons.
  • 1) - Scientific or scientific type editors create a lot of articles. MANY of them will be just fine under the scientific name because a lot of them the average person may not even know about.
  • 2) - In a lot of cases I don't disagree with User:Kingofaces43 as long as the argument is valid on an individual article basis (refer to #3) and not "just" an attempt (editor or project) to "always keep" the scientific naming. I do agree with the statement that the "current structure is in place to avoid confusion as much as possible". I have seen scientific names that are likely better left alone. I have also seen where some scientists themselves seem confused, a species reclassified, possibly changed again, even changed back, and sometimes dual listed. Many times they do agree though. Botanists may use the piped wording taxonomically complex. Look at Ursinae: "Ursinae is a subfamily of Ursidae (bears) named by Swainson (1835) though probably named before Hunt 1998. It was assigned to Ursidae by Bjork (1970), Hunt (1998) and Jin et al. (2007). I actually like that article, that the scientific name uses the corresponding common name (under "Classification") when there is one, and don't see anyone ever trying to rename it.
  • 3) - Unless there was some mass name change that is being attempted to be reversed I don't support mass name change requests. It is too complicated (been there done that) and not productive, but does happen, and I would rather article-by-article assessment most of the time. I mention this because I have seen that a consensus to change one name has been construed as "permission" to go on a name changing crusade which I do not support.
Comments of Stephen's giving examples of articles at the common name being painted as "other stuff" comments is counter-productive and could backfire. Giving examples of articles that use the common name does not appear to be asserting that "other stuff exists" as we generally use the term.
  • 4)- In this case: And at this time, short of really digging in (I was just called to work), the reasoning of Kingofaces43 is persuasive and will require close scrutiny on my part realizing consensus can change. In many instances the support comments of Netoholic can be just as valid. Otr500 (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Just a quick note on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. When I said that, that was directed at being careful about glossing over details specific to other species/taxa that resulted in their how they are titled. Some have fairly standard common names without much ambiguity (e.g., bear means you want bears in general, not just grizzly bears), and others don't. Basically, be wary of inadvertent apples to oranges comparisons. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Melburnian: you moved the article here originally: Any comment? --Nessie (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I moved the page from Dandelion to Taraxacum in 2008 due to a move request at the talk page of WP:PLANTS, which was in line with the WP:NC(flora) naming convention guidelines and in particular the principle of WP:PRECISION. Melburnian (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm genuinely surprised that this could be a controversial move, given the aforementioned guidance on deciding on an article title. Let's look at the criteria it contains (bold headings replaced with smallcaps to avoid confusion with the voting):
Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
The vast majority of people would be completely stumped if you referred to "Taraxacum" in conversation; conversely, almost everyone knows what a dandelion is. As noted above, this is corroborated by WP:GOOGLETEST.
Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
This criterion is largely redundant with the previous one of recognizability. Having said that, "what the subject is actually called in English" is clearly "dandelion", not "Taraxacum". Ask ten of your non-botanist friends what the yellow flowers on their lawn are, and likely all ten of then will respond "dandelion".
Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
If I'm understanding you correctly, this is the core of your objection. The statement in the article that "dandelion" can refer specifically to the species T. officinale is unsourced, and fails a basic test of plausibility -- I'm sure the vast majority of people are unaware of the existence of, or differences between, T. officinale and T. erythrospermum. I'm skeptical that any meaningful number of people would be confused if they searched for an article on "dandelion", and were taken to this article instead of that for T. officinale, and thus I don't expect that renaming the article would introduce any meaningful ambiguity.
Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Conciseness, below)
Not relevant to this discussion; both titles are concise.
Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.
There doesn't seem to be much consistency on this front. Having said that, in a cursory search, I found more articles that used common names for well-known genera (e.g. tulip, maple, and bear) than I found articles that used the scientific name (e.g. Lilium and, well, that was the only one I could find).
Thanks, Stephen Hui (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The criteria you mention is why the current structure is in place to avoid confusion as much as possible. Precision generally overrides anything else in organism common name discussions because of the problems common names introduce (e.g., maize). Also, please keep in mind the "Google test" guidance cautions against use of it outside of straightforward cases, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments shouldn't be made for naming. In your examples like bear, people generally know they are searching for a group of animals called bears, not a specific one like grizzly bear.
In this case, it's ambiguous whether they are searching for the group of plants known as dandelions or the common invasive species Taraxacum officinale they see in their yard that just gets called dandelion in vernacular. That just isn't going to be common knowledge to people that there's a difference or more than one species called dandelion unlike bears, so that's why we need to be careful about unintentional misdirection by common name. In short, if someone doesn't see a problem with changing to dandelion, then that's the exact type of person we're trying to carefully walk through the articles to say this is a genus article, the common weed species you have a good chance of being interested in is over that way.
That's why dandelion fails the precision aspect. As I mentioned above, Taxacrum helps indicate this is a genus page to satisfy WP:PRECISE policy and avoid violating it while still directing others to Taraxacum officinale where a good portion of searchers are likely intending (even if unknowingly) to go. What should be done is to keep the current setup here to avoid the common name complications the move protection helped avoid, but change Taraxacum officinale to common dandelion where your other arguments actually do apply. This just isn't the right article for a move discussion is all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Just as a quick note, WP:FLORA, plant specific guidance on naming, is ultimately what mirrors a lot of what I've been saying. It points out the scientific name often is the better choice for precision reasons. It also says not to confuse our WP:COMMOMNAME policy to make it seem an organismal common name should be used. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the polite and thorough response. While I don't agree with all of your arguments, it's clear that you have given it a lot of thought, and that there's no consensus for an article move. For those reasons, I'm going to let it go. Thanks, Stephen Hui (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The rationale was persuasive before it was so well elaborated by Kingofaces43, and before they were born. A discussion before an RM would be the least disruptive course to consensus. "Scientific or scientific type editors …" ?! cygnis insignis 08:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Reply: Please don't trivialize this to some context of lovely childhood memories as in the !vote above. This seems to be an argument to impugn one's integrity. I am choosing (at this time anyway) to remain neutral if possible. A discussion "before" an RM might be a good thing if all involved can be fair minded but that is not always the case. This discussion has not been "advertised" so is more local, not "so disruptive", and the Nom has apparently bowed out. I was told once that there wasn't a snowball chance in hell an article would reside at the more commonly used name over a project naming but that is where it is located. In "winning" I lost because the battling caused me to lose interest in an area I liked working. With that in mind I would hope someone doesn't stir up a hornets nest just to see what will happen. "And before they were born …" ?! Otr500 (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Otr500: I think childhood memories are more important than !votes, probably on any matter. The system of naming is 250 years old so "before we were born", it works very well and is familiar to those who are interested in plants and animals and not just whatever is meant by science type editors. According to the article this name is > 1000 years old. cygnis insignis 22:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree some of those comments you mention Otr500 were definitely getting off base. While it is common for people to be surprised by a common name they're used to hearing not being the "right" one (if there even is one you can call right), that kind of thing hadn't really come up here yet, nor did it really need to. This mostly just needs to focus on WP:FLORA and WP:TITLE policy instead. I know I'd prefer to see a common name for a title when it's not ambiguous, but this is a pretty good example of why organism naming guidelines tend to default to the scientific name. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
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.

Usage of the term "Calories" instead of "kilocalories"

The Nutrition section states "A 100 gram (3 1⁄2oz) reference amount supplies 45 Calories" in accordance with the cited source, which uses "Calorie" in place of "kilocalorie". Using "Calorie" to mean kcal is common in North America and the source[11] uses data from the US Department of Agriculture and seems to be aimed at US and Canadian readers. I believe the term used on wikipedia should be the less ambiguous "kilocalorie" in order to avoid confusion for readers around the world.

I hesitate to change the section myself and leave it to somebody with more knowledge of wikipedia's common editorial practices. 62.233.204.250 (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Deletion debate

List of Lepidoptera that feed on dandelions is being considered for deletion. Should we move the information to this page under Food for wildlife? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ Blamey, M.; Fitter, R.; Fitter, A (2003). Wild flowers of Britain and Ireland: The Complete Guide to the British and Irish Flora. London: A & C Black. p. 274. ISBN 978-1408179505.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taraxacum/Archive_1&oldid=1215876234"