Talk:Aquilegia vulgaris

A fact from Aquilegia vulgaris appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 April 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Aquilegia vulgaris was associated with a fertility goddess in ancient Greece, symbolized sacredness for Flemish painters, and was an omen of death in Hamlet?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2025/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Aquilegia vulgaris.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 01:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Aquilegia vulgaris flowers

... that Aquilegia vulgaris (pictured) was associated with a fertility goddess in ancient Greece, symbolized sacredness for Flemish painters, and was an omen of death in Hamlet?

Source: Nardi, Enio (2015). Il Genere Aquilegia L. (Ranunculaceae) in Italia/The Genus Aquilegia (Ranunculaceae) in Italy: Aquilegia Italicarum in Europaearum conspectu descriptio. Translated by Coster-Longman, Christina. Florence: Edizioni Polistampa. ISBN 9788859615187.

; Kandeler, Riklef; Ullrich, Wolfram R. (April 2009). "Symbolism of plants: examples from European-Mediterranean culture presented with biology and history of art: May: Columbine". Journal of Experimental Botany. 60 (6): 1535–1536. doi:10.1093/jxb/erp087 – via academic.oup.com.

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2025 Sino-Metals Leach Zambia dam disaster

5x expanded by Pbritti (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 72 past nominations.

Pbritti (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Not doing a full reivew, but I wonder if it'd be possible to shorten the hook to make it sound less multi-part. Something like "has symbolized fertility, sacrednes, and death"? Sdkb ^talk 05:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial article on fine sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. I like the many facets of the hook! For an image, I suggest File:Aquilegia_vulgaris_100503c.jpg, to recognize it more easily. Both are licensed and show well even in stamp format. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changes May 2025

Some changes, particularly to EngVar, in this edit make sense. However, many others are contradictory to the norms established through much interaction and consensus across other Aquilegia articles. These range from simple things like a caption to the infobox image (which should be excluded) and where information about distribution data goes. It has been reverted wholesale, with an eye towards restoring those few changes that are worthwhile. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of substantive edits, including multiple additional references cited, merely to follow a particular style is not acceptable. I have restored the earlier version, and enumerate below the points simplistically disregarded in that reversion:

Image caption in the taxobox. There is nothing anywhere that says they must not be added, and it provides important context. Location data is of supreme importance in biological sciences.
Adding the original, and still commonest, common name (back to Shakespeare: he said 'columbine', not 'common columbine'). Two new references cited.
A clearer notation of its native range.
Extended the range for the height it grows to (90 cm to 1 m), with reference cited.
Replaced an uncited 60 mm flower diameter, to a known 50 mm, cited from two references. If a citation for 60 mm diameter flowers in native wild populations can be found, by all means add that.
Rare occurrence of white flowers in wild populations, with reference cited.
'a herbal' (engvar not restored, even though the edit summary said it would be).
Pointless circumlocution re-inserted; it isn't necessary to say what a cultivar is on every first mention, as it is linked (and "cultivar" is not a word that needs italics).
Image location (as above).
Excessive repetition of the pagename ("An A. vulgaris plant", and later "Wild Aquilegia vulgaris, ...") reinserted.
Number of flowering stems: can be more than two; cited from two references.
Height to 100 cm, with reference cited (as above).
Flowering period in the wild, extended from June to July, with reference cited.
'naturalised' (engvar not restored).
Superfluous circumlocution ("with a spring to summer bloom", "of the species can feature", "hair-like structures called", and later, "of a flower", and "have been recorded as weighing") reinserted.
"particularly those on the form that is sometimes called Aquilegia vulgaris subsp. vulgaris" reinserted. The species is monotypic (POWO), there are no subspecies.
Superfluous use of {{snd}}, when normal commas are perfectly clear.
'taper' (typo 'tapper' reintroduced).
Ecology section. Major new material additions, cited from four significant references, removed without discussion.
Improper capitalisation "Aquilegia Formosa and A. Pubescens" reinserted. These are in a reference; I had checked the reference, and they are not specifically so capitalised there (they used smallcaps for the entire title).
Etymology section. Another reference checked and cited, supporting the eagle claw etymology. Because of this, I had changed the alternative etymology from "A more likely ..." to "Another possible ...", since 'more likely' is too presumptive.
Common name 'columbine' (as above).
Distribution section. The statement from Nold is unclear and poorly formulated; it needs revision as per my {{Clarify}} note.
Cited reference for Britain (not just England) was removed.
Kew POWO's statement on distribution is better followed by Nold's opinion, rather than preceeded by it.
'naturalised' (engvar not restored, again).
The Iberian peninsula is singular, not plural.
Macaronesia: link, rather than need to explain what it is.
Phytochemistry section. Moved to a more logical position, below Taxonomy and Distribution.
Cyanophore sentence reworded to make it clearer (though it could do with further improvement).
Further pointless definition of 'cultivar' re-added. Cultivar is linked, so a definition is not needed here.
Oregon; spelling out removed. US state codes (like OR) are not well known outside of the USA.
'3 to 10' (engvar not restored, again: in English, 'through' necessitates a further destination 'to', e.g. "from A through B to C").
'double flowers of the Stellata Group ...' Poor wording with possessive case reinstalled.
'Hybridisation' (engvar not restored, again).
'behaviour' uncountable, no plural 's' in this instance.
'symbolise' (engvar not restored, again).
Link to Commons Category (very useful, as the sidebar only links to the low quality gallery) removed.

If any aspects of style really need to be restored, work on it from the current version, and not by wholesale reversion of the substantial additions made. Reversion of this version will be regarded as vandalism and reported as such. - MPF (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: I already opened a talk page section on your edits, so I have subordinated your above comment to said section. Per the guidance in policy (WP:EPTALK) and accepted best practices (WP:BRD), it was probably unwise for you to wholesale restore your edits prior to discussion. Your edits use inferior sources to make sweeping claims about a diverse and widespread species. The bundling grammatical fixes with substantial content changes into a single edit, you limit the ability for those improvements to be retained when the rest of the edit is up for debate.

I am following the practices that I have been advised on following starting 16 new Aquilegia articles and substantially expanding five more. Some things (eg the glossing of certain terms) are standard across most Wikipedia articles, while things like infobox captions are something I've been told multiple times by multiple editors to drop. Because your edits were monolithic, I will go back and restore individual items that are not something I wish to challenge.

Regarding the question of distribution, I am afraid your lack of clarity is not something I can resolve. Referring to a species being the most widely distributed in a genus is rather conventional terminology. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, referring to a species being the most widely distributed in a genus is rather conventional terminology: true. But this refers to the native distribution of a taxon, excluding naturalised or invasive populations. This has yet to be established. It may well be true, but it is far from clear from the current wording, which appears to include non-native populations in its area tally. - MPF (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, worth considering you seem to not understand this subject that well. You said The species is monotypic (POWO), there are no subspecies. This is not true. While POWO considers it a separate species, the consensus among most academic coverage and taxonomic authorities of Aquilegia vulgaris subsp. nevadensis is rather lopsidedly in favor of its consideration as a subspecies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Standard flora textbooks, and the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland Atlas, are "inferior sources"? I find that very sweeping, and very condescending. - MPF (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And why the change from normal English -ise, -isa spellings to the (now quite rare in everyday UK English) -ize, -iza? That seems an interjection that goes against the spirit of the former text before you started editing it. - MPF (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is it against the spirit? Additionally, a 10-year-old comprehensive survey of the genus that provides a 20-page description of Aquilegia vulgaris (plus many pages of comparative analysis of the species) by the foremost expert on European columbines (Nardi) is wildly superior to any local flora published in the 1980s. That is not condescending, but a reflection of the reality that some sources are superior to others. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is against the spirit, as it is contrary to the known history of the page. Templates like "Use British English" (created in 2010) did not exist when I started the article in 2006, but you know me well enough now to know that (had it existed) I would have inserted it. Obviously I don't claim any "ownership" of the page, but I do expect my linguistic preferences to be maintained when they are known and are also fully compatible with mos:ties. Thus, your change contravenes mos:retain.

I'm sure Nardi is an excellent text, but with the title Il Genere Aquilegia L. (Ranunculaceae) in Italia (my emphasis), I have no guarantee that the coverage extends to the morphology of the species outside of Italy, only a small part of the species' native distribution. In the moister, more equable oceanic climate of Britain, it is understandable that the species can reach 100 cm tall, rather than the 90 cm limit Nardi cites presumably for Italian populations. So why reject the 100 cm and its citation? And ditto, the flowering period extending to July in Britain. Likewise, why reject the ecological data I cited:

Columbine occurs from sea level up to 510 m altitude in the north of its range in Britain,[3] and up to 2000 m further south in the Alps.[5] It favours, but is not limited to, damp calcareous soils, typically over limestone, and occurs in both shady damp woodlands and more open grassland, fens and marshes.[3][4][5]

And

Although perennial, it is often short-lived, with individual plants often dying at 2–3 years old.[13]

This is all from the sources I cited; it is all factual; it is all new data that does not contradict anything in the article previously. To exclude it as unreliable, or whatever, is not reasonable. Why will you not accept this data? Please put it back in, with the references I used. - MPF (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While it's a shame there's no easily accessible version of Nardi 2015 online (I had to send off to a seller in Florence!), its species descriptions are representative of the highest level of the species. The "in Italy" is humorously imprecise, as Nardi spends about 200 pages exclusively covering the species outside Italy but in Europe and the Caucasus. If you want to request any pages from the book for any editing you might get up to (or access to any of the texts I've cited/have in my library), only ask! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the biennial character of A. vulgaris, that's actually more a matter of its cultivated forms. In any case, a superior and more precise citation is provided in the section on cultivated forms. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]