Talk:Ornithogalum

Random comment...

These are difficult to get rid of... Roundup doesn't phase them. O_O —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.91.128.54 (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Where to cover "star of bethlehem"?

Peace and Passion (talk · contribs) and I have been doing a little edit warring (see history from 28 August 2009 to now). My position is that a hatnote on Ornithogalum, pointing to Star of Bethlehem (disambiguation), is unnecessary and potentially confusing because "Star of bethlehem" does not redirect to Ornithogalum (see Wikipedia:Hatnote; I don't think this case falls under any of the "Examples of proper use" cases, and does fall under "Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous"). The article Star of Bethlehem already has a hatnote; that's where the hatnote belongs. (As a quibble, the current wording of "other plants of the same name" doesn't make any sense if "same name" means Ornithogalum). Comments? Kingdon (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize what's been going on as an edit war :) .... As you say, "Star of Bethlehem" doesn't direct to Ornithogalum, but this is the key: Star of Bethlehem (plant) does. We could just change that to redirect to the disambig, and then there would be no issue.

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 23:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

PS With respect to your "quibble," "Star of Bethlehem" is bolded as the first name in the lead, and as the link clearly goes to "Star of Bethlehem (disambiguation)," I don't think your quibble is a quibble.

Redirecting Star of Bethlehem (plant) to the disambig probably makes most sense to me (even though I suspect that Ornithogalum is the most common meaning of Star of Behlehem when applied to a plant). Star of Bethlehem (plant) is linked from a few articles (which ideally would be updated to point to a specific plant, but I'm reluctant to do that without being sure which plant is meant). But people won't typically end up there as the result of a search. I'm going to ask at WT:PLANTS to see what other people think. Kingdon (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, this is probably my fault. I moved the page back on 21 February and forgot to delete the redirect. As it stands, I don't think Star of Bethlehem (plant) is a useful redirect, as it's disambiguated with the term (plant). It's not a reasonable search term, but likely linked from various articles. Once those links are corrected and the redirect deleted, I don't think there's any use for a hatnote leading back to the dab page for Star of Bethlehem. WP:NAMB may be of interest, here. --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

For most people "most common meaning" probably just depends on which of the "Star of Bethlehems" grows nearest to where they live. I think you two have come to the best conclusion: delete the redirect—or we could redirect the redirect to the disambiguation just to be complicated... ;) .... Just as NAMB says, if there is an ambiguous redirect, a hatnote is proper, so we may as well get rid of it if we don't want the hatnote.

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I missed this somehow, but I recently tweaked Star of Bethlehem (disambiguation)

By way of example, imagine a reader wants to read about a specific plant, say Ironically named ‘Star of Bethlehem’ orchid supports Darwin’s theory of evolution

If they enter that name they end up at the dab, via the hatnote at Star of Bethlehem; they have a list of plants or the target if they remember it is an orchid. Once they reach an article there is no need for a hat note, the dab and redirects have succeeded and there is no reason to confuse the matter.

The common names could be mentioned (and linked?) in the text of the referents, eg.

Angraecum sesquipedale ... the species is known by the common names Darwin's orchid and Star of Bethlehem [piped],

along with the interesting facts relating to those names. If a name refers to lots of taxa, a set index could be split out from the dab; one advantage is when it linked from the prose of the articles. cygnis insignis 09:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ornithogalum. 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/20150923195141/http://www.bulbsonline.org/ibc-jsp/en/education/beroepsonderwijs/summer-blooming-bulbs/Ornithogalum.xml to http://www.bulbsonline.org/ibc-jsp/en/education/beroepsonderwijs/summer-blooming-bulbs/Ornithogalum.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923195141/http://www.bulbsonline.org/ibc-jsp/en/education/beroepsonderwijs/summer-blooming-bulbs/Ornithogalum.xml to http://www.bulbsonline.org/ibc-jsp/en/education/beroepsonderwijs/summer-blooming-bulbs/Ornithogalum.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)