![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Where in the Balkan mountains Horse chestnut lives? Is there some specific high?-- Hannu 07:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Are horse chestnut leaves really 1/2 a metre across?
Note -- parts of this article seem to be taken directly from a work called The Mirror of Literature, Amusement, and Instruction, Volume 10, No. 280 (published October 27, 1827), by various authors -- http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/11369 The article is public domain in the U.S., but it's still kosher to give credit where credit is due.
Maybe we should mention somewhere that this tree is often called "conker tree" [1]. Marnanel 16:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC) -- Ricardo Carneiro Pires 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if we could add that horse chestnuts are a natural spider repellent. Usually their being placed around the perimeter of the house and along windowsills is enough to keep the spiders at bay, however some people claim - based on their experiences- that this does not work. In many stubborn cases however (particularly with large wolf spiders) if one or two horse chestnuts have a puncture hole in them that is often enough to drive the spiders away. I think that this would be something worth looking into further and possibly adding to the page. Litlest amazon 06:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This is nonsense. The article is about the horse chestnut, not silly old wives' tales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.152.206 ( talk) 06:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The article says it can grow in Tromsø, Norway. Is there any source for this? I know it grows well as far north as Steigen and also can grow further north in Harstad, possibly not quite fully developed at the latter location.
The result of the move request was that the article was moved back to Aesculus hippocastanum, per WP:NC (flora). GTBacchus( talk) 16:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Horse chestnut tree →
Horse chestnut — If we are going to go for the common name, there is no need for the "tree" on the end. I'd do the move except that it is being camped by one of the many redirects that moving the various
Aesculus pages around has spawned.
Mangoe (
talk)
16:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
*'''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 naming conventions.Since the above post is a response to mine, I guess you think you're refuting me? Nothing you've written addresses my evidence that "Horse chestnut" is horribly ambiguous. You appear to responding to my comment about the most commonly used name with "not in the UK". Is that the substance of your response. Hesperian 04:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The botany project has advice on this situation:
Please note that horse chestnuts have a significant economic and cultural history as a crop, having being used to produce soap, starch, glucose, medicine, wood and, of course, conkers. We therefore require an article under the English name of horse chestnut, just as we have articles like Barley, which I have helped towards FA status. An article of this kind will serve the general reader/editor well, while the finer points of botany may be addressed under other titles such as the genus Aesculus.
Colonel Warden ( talk) 12:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Colonel Warden mentioned this page, and so I will not consider expressing an opinion on the move, but I do have several queries on some of the comments made above
Nuts! See Conker (disambiguation) and Conker, which redirects to Conkers. -- Una Smith ( talk) 04:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Parts of this may be plagiarized, as some of the language is highly non-encyclopedic, and reads very, very much like cutesy journalistic prose/dialog, e.g. "Nowadays guests enjoy the shade to keep their heads cool - even after the second Maß (a mug with a liter of beer)." — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | It has been suggested that the phrase British Isles should be included in this article. The use of this term in this article is being discussed at WT:BISE#...and Aesculus, Aesculus hippocastanum. If you would like to contribute to the debate please do so. |
TFOWR 16:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The first two external references to nih.gov pages discuss medicinal uses and support usefulness in treating venous insufficiency but not other conditions. Should they be given reference numbers and the medicinal uses section rewritten to reflect what they say? Gjames04 ( talk) 06:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjames04 ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Isn't it part of the Hippocastanaceae family (instead of the Sapindaceae)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.147.180 ( talk) 17:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Aesculus hippocastanum. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.unspecial.org/uns619/UNS619_T15.htmlWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Why does distribution map include only the Balkans? Goliath74 ( talk) 20:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aesculus hippocastanum. 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, 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
It seems redundant to have two very similar photos of "Remainders of horse chestnut flower spikes" ... " found on the ground below." One such photo would surely suffice? Buyani Nyoni ( talk) 14:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Where in the Balkan mountains Horse chestnut lives? Is there some specific high?-- Hannu 07:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Are horse chestnut leaves really 1/2 a metre across?
Note -- parts of this article seem to be taken directly from a work called The Mirror of Literature, Amusement, and Instruction, Volume 10, No. 280 (published October 27, 1827), by various authors -- http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/11369 The article is public domain in the U.S., but it's still kosher to give credit where credit is due.
Maybe we should mention somewhere that this tree is often called "conker tree" [1]. Marnanel 16:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC) -- Ricardo Carneiro Pires 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if we could add that horse chestnuts are a natural spider repellent. Usually their being placed around the perimeter of the house and along windowsills is enough to keep the spiders at bay, however some people claim - based on their experiences- that this does not work. In many stubborn cases however (particularly with large wolf spiders) if one or two horse chestnuts have a puncture hole in them that is often enough to drive the spiders away. I think that this would be something worth looking into further and possibly adding to the page. Litlest amazon 06:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This is nonsense. The article is about the horse chestnut, not silly old wives' tales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.152.206 ( talk) 06:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The article says it can grow in Tromsø, Norway. Is there any source for this? I know it grows well as far north as Steigen and also can grow further north in Harstad, possibly not quite fully developed at the latter location.
The result of the move request was that the article was moved back to Aesculus hippocastanum, per WP:NC (flora). GTBacchus( talk) 16:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Horse chestnut tree →
Horse chestnut — If we are going to go for the common name, there is no need for the "tree" on the end. I'd do the move except that it is being camped by one of the many redirects that moving the various
Aesculus pages around has spawned.
Mangoe (
talk)
16:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
*'''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 naming conventions.Since the above post is a response to mine, I guess you think you're refuting me? Nothing you've written addresses my evidence that "Horse chestnut" is horribly ambiguous. You appear to responding to my comment about the most commonly used name with "not in the UK". Is that the substance of your response. Hesperian 04:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The botany project has advice on this situation:
Please note that horse chestnuts have a significant economic and cultural history as a crop, having being used to produce soap, starch, glucose, medicine, wood and, of course, conkers. We therefore require an article under the English name of horse chestnut, just as we have articles like Barley, which I have helped towards FA status. An article of this kind will serve the general reader/editor well, while the finer points of botany may be addressed under other titles such as the genus Aesculus.
Colonel Warden ( talk) 12:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Colonel Warden mentioned this page, and so I will not consider expressing an opinion on the move, but I do have several queries on some of the comments made above
Nuts! See Conker (disambiguation) and Conker, which redirects to Conkers. -- Una Smith ( talk) 04:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Parts of this may be plagiarized, as some of the language is highly non-encyclopedic, and reads very, very much like cutesy journalistic prose/dialog, e.g. "Nowadays guests enjoy the shade to keep their heads cool - even after the second Maß (a mug with a liter of beer)." — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | It has been suggested that the phrase British Isles should be included in this article. The use of this term in this article is being discussed at WT:BISE#...and Aesculus, Aesculus hippocastanum. If you would like to contribute to the debate please do so. |
TFOWR 16:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The first two external references to nih.gov pages discuss medicinal uses and support usefulness in treating venous insufficiency but not other conditions. Should they be given reference numbers and the medicinal uses section rewritten to reflect what they say? Gjames04 ( talk) 06:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjames04 ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Isn't it part of the Hippocastanaceae family (instead of the Sapindaceae)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.147.180 ( talk) 17:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Aesculus hippocastanum. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.unspecial.org/uns619/UNS619_T15.htmlWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Why does distribution map include only the Balkans? Goliath74 ( talk) 20:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aesculus hippocastanum. 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, 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
It seems redundant to have two very similar photos of "Remainders of horse chestnut flower spikes" ... " found on the ground below." One such photo would surely suffice? Buyani Nyoni ( talk) 14:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)