Talk:Spathiphyllum

Untitled
Spathiphyllum are hideous horrible plants...dont buy or plant one ever!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.136.134.30 (talk • contribs) 21:02, June 2, 2006 (UTC)


 * I like mine. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Peace lillies are great plants for lazy plant owners. They require little upkeep and they stems and leaves sag when they need water, once you give them water they come right back to perfect form. It is a plant that really communicates with you.


 * That's quite interesting. Perhaps worth adding to the article if anyone can find a decent source? camelworks 18:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a little mention of the plant's featuring in the movie Hot Fuzz?

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elwenze.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Unconstructive Edit
65.168.72.82, your recent edit to Spathiphyllum appears to be unconstructive and so I'm undoing the edit. The edit was unconstructive for the following reasons. You stated that Spathiphyllum are also known as "death lillies". I've heard many different synonyms, but never this one before. Many other species in Araceae however do go by this name and so I really think a really good source stating this is essential if this is to be an article. The other change you made seems to be more closely associated with vandalism. You wrote "Although spath may flower, it is incorrect to refer to spath as flowers. It is, first and foremost, a plant.". It is not neccessary to tell the readers in an article associated with a specific genus how a spathe is to be referred to. If the reader doesn't know what a spathe is they can simply look it up. Its also completely unneccessary to tell the readers that its a plant twice in the article. You also placed a reference that has nothing to do with what you were attempting to claim.Chhe (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)