Talk:Taraxacum officinale

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) 11:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

REDIRECT
If nobody objects, in a few days I'm going to redirect this article to Dandelion. It doesn't add anything to the information found there. --Dbutler1986 (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the short answer is that Dandelion is about the whole genus, and Taraxacum officinale is about one species (although it currently doesn't say anything about it). To given an example where the species article does have useful information, see Taraxacum californicum.   It would be kind of confusing, probably, to have some species redirect to the genus and other have their own article. As for a genus article versus separate species articles, I can see lots of pros and cons on this one.  In favor of species articles, there might be too much information to comfortably fit in one (of the sort now at the T. californicum article, but times many species) and people are used to species articles.  In favor of the genus article, I am no expert but my impression is that there is a complete lack of consensus about how to divide Taraxacum into species, and so it may be awkward to try to write an article for a "species" which might vary widely in circumscription.  (A perhaps more clear-cut example is Littorella which in my opinion works quite well as a genus article, and would be hard to divide into species articles due to differing opinions about the number of species in that genus). Kingdon (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No way; redirects from a species to a (non-monotypic) genus was rejected absolutely at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life/Archive23. Hesperian 05:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. Whatever we do about anything else, the species shouldn't be a redirect to the genus. Kingdon (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Object, per Hesperian. The species is notable, see for example pl wikipedia article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for the reasons given. Taraxacum officinale is arguably the most important of the dandelion species to humans, having become a near-cosmopolitan weed, whereas many of the other species are narrow endemics.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, if so, then maybe much of what is now at dandelion should be moved here (and dandelion made a redirect here, and the current dandelion article moved to Taraxacum). If none of the taxonomic confusion applies to classifying the near-ubiquitous weed, that simplifies our task. Kingdon (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Native where?
So, where is the species native? --Una Smith (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question - don't have good answer though. Surely Eurasia, one subspecies is native in Alaska. I am sure this plant has traveled around for a long time with human migrations.  Hardyplants (talk) 05:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also a good question is: If the plant "was originally imported to America as a food crop", how was it "used by Native Americans as a food and medicine."? 162.89.0.47 (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC) Eric

Bloom
"It blooms from March until October"

Oh, yellow fields for a half of a year. This would be very nice as for myself. Cmapm (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I'd like to merge Medicinal properties of dandelion into this article, since it duplicates the subject and scope of this page. Really, I'd like to just delete it right out, but it might have some points that aren't covered in the Uses section of this page. Should it be merged into this page? Any thoughts? Indeterminate (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That page is in bad shape. "Dandelions may have medicinal uses." Oh, really? "The medicinal and nutritional uses for the dandelion are the main reasons why there are so many dandelions today." Seems very unlikely to me. Merging the page by copying any sane information it contains to the present article seems to be the best approach. Hans Adler 20:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That page is indeed in terrible shape. One of the worst statements was clearly vandalism ( 02:28, 1 August 2008 74.210.68.175), but the first version of the page is no good either. I support reducing it to any tiny fragments that might be salvageable. It would be necessary to check every statement; the PDR and encyclopedia listed should be perfectly good as references. However, there seems to be sufficient medicinal info on this page already. Nadiatalent (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support merge as above. Go ahead. Naturenet | Talk 09:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Done, the page has been replaced by a redirect. I haven't added the references to this page because there seem to be enough already. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Subspecies
The list of subspecies on this page was quite a problem, but clearly removing it is not popular. FNA was originally cited for the list of subspecies, but it actually says something rather opposite to that "Phenotypic and genotypic variation of this species have been studied in North America ... but results of those studies did not lead to the recognition of microspecies." That's botanist speak for "they decided to not split the species, as it occurs in NA". Some comments: Taraxacum ceratophorum probably needs its own page, citing http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=242351280 The autonym T. officinale subsp. officinale shouldn't have any authorities, autonyms don't, any source that cites it with authorities is not good botany, and should be disregarded. Rothmaler's flora of Germany dates from 1966 and occurs with the phrase "in the past". We need to decide whether to consider that outdated or current, and whether to follow FNA in considering that subsp. vulgare and subsp. officinale don't need to be separated. I have seen, but don't have Dudman, A.A.; Richards, A.J. 1997, 2000. Dandelions of Great Britain and Ireland. Botanical Society of the British Isles, London. If anyone can check it, it might discuss what is a good up-to-date classification of T. officinale throughout the world. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Nguyen1310's plant
User:Nguyen1310 has changed the article's description of Taraxacum officinale, based on a plant found in his neighbor's backyard. That plant had stems 1-2 cm thick, with brown thorns like those of a rose bush, and was capable of being chopped down. If the description is correct, the plant was not T. officinale. (I would be interested to know what it was. Are there any pictures of it?) I have reverted Nguyen's edits. Maproom (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was Sonchus asper? Maproom (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, quite certain it was a dandelion, because the leaves are more broad, they're flat [not crinkly on the edges], and 100% smooth with no spines/prickles of any sort. Thorns are only on the [woody, and brownish] main stem [lower ~50 cm, not above], while all other parts have no thorns/prickles whatsoever, and other arms/internodes are smooth, crunchy, moist and green. Regrettably i didn't take pictures of it... Nguyen1310 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Taraxacum officinale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070812144926/http://plantwatch.sunsite.ualberta.ca/plants/com_dan.php to http://plantwatch.sunsite.ualberta.ca/plants/com_dan.php

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Crepidinae sp. (Slovenia).jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Crepidinae sp. (Slovenia).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 13, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-05-13. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 22 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 discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ___CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk   00:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Taraxacum officinale → Common dandelion – Per WP:COMMONNAME, and discussion started at Talk:Taraxacum. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This does not appear to be the WP:COMMONNAME per ngrams comparison. Current redirect works just fine. -- Netoholic @ 02:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As Netoholic says, the redirect already takes care of the naming issues. Normally, the species is just called dandelion, which is indeed ambiguous because that is also a common name for the genus. If this common name weren't simply common dandelion, I'd be more open to moving away from the scientific name, but better to try to limit confusion by following WP:PRECISE and WP:FLORA that would discourage this move. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:33, 24 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.