Talk:Chamaemelum nobile

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cdiaz0823.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2022 (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) 11:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: page moved per cites given and also Ngram search and examination of some of the hits, e.g., The Oxford Book of Health Foods -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Anthemis nobilis → Chamaemelum nobile – The page Chamaemelum nobile currently redirects to Anthemis nobilis, however the former is the accepted name according to current botanical authorities (e.g. Tropicos, Plant List), the latter being the basionym and also a potential synonym for other species. There doesn't seem to be any discussion or history that I can find to explain why the page was originally placed under A.nobilis L. rather than C.nobile (L.) All.. Bittercress (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• A quick comment. I haven't yet looked into the literature to see which one is more commonly supported, but I'd like to point out that The Plant List and Tropicos are both well known for their errors, so I would never rely on them as an authority on classification for species. A better metric would be which name is used in recent floras or treatments of the genera. Rkitko ^(talk) 19:33, 13 May 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Medical properties

The phrase "Chamomile is considered to be an antiseptic, antibiotic, disinfectant, bactericidal and vermifuge" would seem to be deceptive, as a reader could get the impression that the people doing the considering are scientists, when in fact the reference is a natural food store. Could someone add information about the scientific evidence of those properties?--Frglz (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chamaemelum nobile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122222553/http://plantlife.org.uk:80/uk/plantlife-saving-species-under-our-care-chamaemelum-nobile.htm to http://www.plantlife.org.uk/uk/plantlife-saving-species-under-our-care-chamaemelum-nobile.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Folk medicine source and content

This edit was justified because the content addressed medical claims, for which the Kew source - which was brief and vague, and yes, is highly regarded for botanical information - is not a WP:MEDRS authority, The claims apply to folk medicine, and are not reliable. No MEDRS sources are provided in the Kew website. Chamomile does not have medicinal properties confirmed by high-quality sources, as stated here and here. Zefr (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)