Talk:Chives

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Family[edit]

Welsh onion is grown for leaves too. What about leeks? are they in the same family? -- Oct 2002, Tarquin

Welsh onions and leeks are in the same family, indeed the same genus, Allium. -- WormRunner | Talk 06:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Content source[edit]

It should be noted that the content introduced in this edit is from Andham2000's website and thus should not be removed as a copyright violation. -SCEhardt 00:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Content problem[edit]

In the section History and Folklore in the first part it is said that Marco Polo brought chives from China to Europe. But later it is said that Romans (who lived some 1000 years before Marco Polo) believed that chives had this and that medical usage. So the content is self inconsistant.--Philopp 12:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the inconsistencies - MPF 15:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese and Chinese cuisine[edit]

There was a paragraph about Japanese and Chinese cuisine in the article before i rewrote it, I couldn't find any references for that claim, all I found related to Chinese chives, which is a completely different species.

Anyone? -Obli (Talk)? 20:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Onion Family?[edit]

Not sure on this, but shouldn't the first line refer to onions as a genus rather than family? (Allium) 67.170.108.226 (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way back when, onions were considered to be lilies. Now days, lilies and onions are not considered to be even in the same order. Was this due to DNA studies on bulb producing plants? Seems that maybe bulb plants are a larger and more diverse group than origninally thought. I imagine that may be because the common ancestor of bulb plants evolved early in flowering plant history. I wonder if bulbs developed before the KT extinction. That would be a hell of a survival tactic. Bulbs would stay in the ground for a few years, then when the earth settled back to "normal", they would sprout and continue as if nothing happened. I have a new appreciation for bulb producing plants. Well, I'm just speculating. I'm going to look all that up and see if I came close. Sorry about typing out my thoughts, but this is fascinating.
Well, to answer your question, yes it is the onion family, now Alliaceae. 75.88.30.191 (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clumps or not?[edit]

First the article says the name is always plural because they always grow in clumps, not singly. Later it says that a species was found in Maine that grows singly, not in clumps.Tom NM (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were talking about Allium schoenoprasum. If the other chives that grows in Maine is a species other than Allium schoenoprasum, then it should probably be mentioned in this article only as another species that is also called chives with a link to a page about that species. A similar thing was done on both the Yam article and the Sweet Potato article. 75.88.30.191 (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers on leaves?[edit]

This sentence seems dubious: "The leaves are hollow and tubular, up to 50 cm long, and 2–3 mm in diameter, with a soft texture, although, prior to the emergence of a flower from a leaf, they may appear stiffer than usual."

Surely flowers grow on stems, not leaves? Also, the flower stems are and remain stiff even after the head has gone to seed. Or is the meaning intended to be that the leaves around the flower stiffen for a while before the flower emerges? That would be hard to define; the flowers are quite dense within the clump. Madgenberyl (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bunch of odd terminology in there. It's been corrected. --Juventas (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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: not moved. Favonian (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chives → Chive – Move to singular name per WP:SINGULAR. 86.21.250.191 (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

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[edit]

Any additional comments:
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.

Suggestion for video footage of cleaning chives[edit]

I would suggest adding a video of cleaning chives in preparation for cooking.

I'm involved with the Global Lives Project, a non-profit organization working to create an open video library of human experiences around the world. GLP has video footage of two men in China cleaning bunches of chives to prepare them for the kitchen. Here is the detailed footage, which can be edited down to 3-5 minutes. -FefeGong (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AE template[edit]

Do we really need the American English template? I've read through the article and it seems to be completely free of Americanisms and other regional English signifiers. This is unusual and a Good Thing in Wikipedia articles, of course. --Ef80 (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are some American spellings, e.g. "flavor" rather than "flavour". So, yes, we do need the template to ensure current and future consistency. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you don't need the template. You just need to revert and refer to WP:RETAIN if it is questioned. Otherwise every English article in Wikipedia would need the template.MartinezMD (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think every article should have an ENGVAR template; it would avoid a lot of time-wasting inappropriate copy-editing. At the least it does no harm to have the template here. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oxalic acid[edit]

I find it strange that people are warned not to eat rhubarb leaves which are stated as having 0.5% oxalic acid and yet chives are listed as having 1.6% oxalic acid on the oxalic acid page. Why do we eat chives then? is the warning on the rhubarb page necessary? 198.103.184.76 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suspect the rhubarb warning is unnecessary (and has been confused for antifreeze poisoning since that produces calcium oxalate crystals too). I'll see if I can find an appropriate source.MartinezMD (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chives. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plural noun[edit]

IP user User: ‎2a02:2121:344:fe67:6137:67f1:b5d8:c548 reverted my change to the lede, aimed at getting some grammatical sense into referring to a plant that has only a plural noun. He cited [1], which indeed asserts that 'chives' is a plural-only noun. (Note that oxforddictionaries.com is entirely unrelated to The Oxford English Dictionary, and is just trading on that name)

Amusingly they then give two examples; the second is 'chive and garlic dressing'. If we're being pedantic, shouldn't that be 'chives and garlic dressing'?

At any rate, I accept the revert. I've tried to make sense of the plural/singular problem with a new edit. MrDemeanour (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Oxford Dictionaries is proud to publish the Oxford English Dictionary [...]." [2] 2A02:2121:344:FE67:6137:67F1:B5D8:C548 (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am better-informed; thank you. MrDemeanour (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "chives" can also be used as a singular mass noun, with a meaning like "the herb chives", where a singular verb is correct, but I agree that for consistency it's better to use the plural.
Nouns in apposition are always(?) made singular in form. Compare "scissors", always plural, with "a scissor movement". Peter coxhead (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy[edit]

"Allium schoenoprasum subsp. latiorifolium (Pau) Rivas Mart., Fern.Gonz.& Sánchez Mata" and "Allium schoenoprasum subsp. gredense (Rivas Goday) Rivas Mart., Fern. Gonz. & Sánchez Mata" are listed as subspecies, cited to theplantlist.org.

Minor nit: The site theplantlist.org is currently showing a banner stating that citations should now be to worldofflowersonline.org. Both sites show rather skimpy information. The "About link doesn't work, so I'm unable to determine how these sites are funded; I expect by stuffing breeder's (subscriber's?) names into the listing titles.

Major nit: I have no idea what the meaning of "Pau" and "Rivas Goday" are; and I have even less understanding why the names of three people are appended to the name of the subspecies. I can't understand either plantlist.org or wortldofflowersonline.org; their listings are rather opaque - I'd go so far as to suggest they are primary sources.

As far as I'm aware, the subspecies should be called simply Allium schoenoprasum subsp. latiorifolium, and Allium schoenoprasum subsp. gredense. I don't believe it's customary to list the names of a series of breeders (or whatever those people are) as part of a subspecies name.

The article says the species has two known subspecies; the citation suggests that there are many more.

The claims look to me like spamming.

The change introducing thrse bizarre "subspecies names" seems to have arrived around November 2017; my bisect-fu hasn't been up to identifying the specific revision.

I propose to remove the lengthy list of trailing names, and change the citation link to point to worldofflowersonline, to the page for the relevant subspecies.

I've tried to find a better source to cite, but I've failed so far.

MrDemeanour (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrDemeanour: the names you refer to are the scientific authorities, and not the breeders. You will find them (or should find them) in every list of scientific names in any article. Do not remove them.
Plants of the World Online (PoWO) or the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (WCSP) are, in my view, better substitutes for the Plant List.
None of these are primary sources; they are secondary taxonomic databases, drawing on the primary literature, but curated.
However, it's not clear that these subspecies are widely accepted, which is a different matter. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If those trailing names are scientific authorities, then surely they should not be appended to the subspecies name, but rather appear as citations?
Since you've ordered me not to change the names, I won't change them. I'm obedient. (Not really; I just don't like editing articles with bossy gatekeepers in-place)
MrDemeanour (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MrDemeanour: please look at any article that has a complete list of subdivisions – such as List of Allium species or List of Araneidae species: A, and you'll see authorities are included (in smaller font). It's not a question of me being "bossy" but this being the standard in the English Wikipedia. Author citation (botany) and Author citation (zoology) explain how author citation works and why it's needed (in large part because there are homonyms). Author citations are appended to the name or part of the name to which they apply. So in a list or in the final line(s) of a taxobox you might see:
  • Allium L. – shows authority for the genus
  • Allium decipiens Fisch. ex Schult. & Schult.f. – shows authority for the specific epithet within the genus
  • Allium decipiens subsp. quercetorum Seregin – shows authority for the subspecies epithet within the species
Peter coxhead (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chives&oldid=1212527101"