![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Greetings Mate, first of all thanks for this wonderfull and well done article. Below you will find just nit picking on wording and editing. Since I'm not an Wikipedia editor (this is my first talk), I may be completely off base. :)
A hidden URL http://vs.aka-online.de/globalwpsearch/ was just inserted into the article. The URL leads to a site that hosts advertising, is not Wikipedia-affiliated, and has nothing compelling to offer on the subject of saffron — instead, it only functions as a search engine, a function that Wikipedia already has through its search box and interwiki links. Please see WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Links to commercial sites are fine, as long as they have "meaningful" and "relevant" content about saffron that is not already in this article. Thanks. Saravask 15:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
If this were still on FAC, I would now be objecting for "Too Many Pictures." This is out of hand, it looks like a photo-essay. Pick and choose. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 06:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Unless people object, I plan on splitting just split this article into four two pieces:
My goal is to get the main article under 40 70 kb (it was at 90–91 kb when featured).
History of saffron is up for peer review
here.
Saravask 03:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I also think that history is the most logical- and probably the only necessary daughter article.-- nixie 16:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
While it's good to have lots of notes, it is taking up a lot of vertical space, which looks bad to me. The references section is handled quite well I think, splitting them up into two rows, and I'd like to do the same thing to the notes, except my wiki-fu is weak, and I can't quite grok the markup. Could someone help out? Fieari 15:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed:
I oppose the addition of this gallery. Wikipedia is not a collection of images without text. These don't even have captions. Add as many images in the body text as you want to illustrate your point. All the other images should be moved to wikisource, just as we move large collections of quotes to wikiquote. savidan (talk) (e@) 16:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I immediately noticed some glaring errors in Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/March_20,_2006, which will be appearing on the main page in 9 days. Most obvious is the bizarre broken sentence "Saffron, which has for decades been the world's most expensive spice by weight.", but there are also numerous subtler errors (like not italicizing saffron in "The word saffron") and poor space usage. The overall effect of this box will be too bore to tears 99% of Wikipedia's readers, who will turn off as soon as the rambling discourse of the summarized intro begins with a lengthy series of botanical definitions ("The flower's three stigmas (the distal ends of the plant's carpels) and parts of its style (a stalk connecting the stigmas to the rest of the plant) are often dried and used in cooking as a seasoning and colouring agent.", when simply "Components of the flower are often dried and used in cooking as a seasoning and colouring agent." would work just as well for the main page's purposes!), which, though completely fine and appropriate for the article itself (since it will continue to use that terminology throughout the page), is very poor choice for the Wikipedia article. Even more heinous from an aesthetic perspective is the brutal error of using the exact same image for the main-page as is used at the very top of this page, even though we have dozens of even more beautiful and illustrative images available to use instead! Tragic. Luckily, admins can help edit to fix all of these errors before the thing actually appears on the main page; if I was one, I'd do it myself rather than bitching about it. :P - Silence 20:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
hello. "Historians believe that saffron first came to China with Mongol invaders by way of Persia. Yet saffron is mentioned in ancient Chinese medical texts, including the Pun Tsao ("Great Herbal") pharmacopoeia (pp. 1552–78), a tome dating from around 1600 BC . Compiled under Emperor Shen-Ung...", this piece of info is not correct:
Maybe someone would want to verify the info? Cheer.-- K.C. Tang 03:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of which the lead says most expensive for centuries, but looking at the history it seems to go back and forth and say decades without any of them noting in the edit summary. The main page blurb says decades, and I would have fixed it to centuries if I new for sure which was correct. - Taxman Talk 04:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is stunningly good.-- Deglr6328 05:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there a "best among featured" category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
This really does represent Wikipedia at its best. Nice work folks! — Matt Crypto 11:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
There's vandalism in the first two sentences of the article ("Saffron (IPA: ['sæːfɹən]) is a piece of shit spice. It sucks almost as much as this Wikipedia site does."), but I don't seem to be able to edit it out. Maybe this is because of the way the first paragraph is protected when it's on the main page? (The main page text is fine.) Anyway, I don't seem to be nearly as competent at using the delete key as I thought, so someone else should probably take care of that. 130.132.199.75 07:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone added info about Safranbolu's annual festival to the "Biology" section — this is bad. I moved (a reworded version of the) info to History of saffron. Otherwise, addition of more information (about things whose mention may be neglected in this article) is always welcome. Saravask 18:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd say most people have no idea what iodoform smells like. Could someone who has actually smelled saffron make a better comparison please? — Keenan Pepper 18:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I grew up in a partially Portuguese home, so I learned about assafroa early on, but only recently did I learn that "Portuguese saffron" [3] was actually safflower, not saffron. I've added this information to the page, but sadly, other than commercial links like the one I just gave (which are likely to be transient) I don't have a good reference for this naming to put in the article. I've added a note and hopefully my footnote here will suffice. If not, then I'll see what I can do about finding an offline source. - Harmil 20:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
First, let me say that this is a really great FA. But I have a question about the line Some forty hours of frenetic day-and-night labour are needed to pick 150,000 flowers. I followed the refs all the way to the originating BBC article and it is clear that the woman was talking about her whole family, so it wasn't 40 person-hours. Is there any sense of how many person-hours are required? Thanks, Banyan Tree 23:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I feel bad about letting some commercial links (no matter how informative they may be) while saying no to others — therefore, I'm thinking about just deleting the whole "External links" section. What do others think? Saravask 06:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a small bug in the article that makes one part of it difficult to read on a low resolution. See here how the "see also" section looks on my computer: http://whahay.net/pubaccess/Saffron-bug.png (you might need to copypaste the link into the address bar before it will load). Maybe someone could think of a way to fix this? -- Michiel Sikma 09:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Some of the information in the other two articles on saffron ( History of saffron and Trade and use of saffron) duplicate and overlap with this article. In particular, the others mention aspects of history, use in cuisine and medicine, trade, and so forth. All three are excellent articles, but wouldn't it be best if they were all merged into this one? Glane23 ( talk) 16:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Merge proposals closed and tags removed by ( User:Neelix ( Talk) July 19, 2008. I can't argue, in light of the opposition comments noted above and the lack of discussion in general. Glane23 ( talk) 17:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if this page could describe which parts of the plant are used. There is a sentence that seems to suggest that only the threads are used, but this is never clearly stated. - P. Matthews 206.191.0.138 19:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello. "Historians believe that saffron first came to China with Mongol invaders by way of Persia. Yet saffron is mentioned in ancient Chinese medical texts, including the Pun Tsao ("Great Herbal") pharmacopoeia (pp. 1552–78), a tome dating from around 1600 BC . Compiled under Emperor Shen-Ung...", this piece of info is not correct:
Maybe someone would want to verify the info? Cheer.-- K.C. Tang 03:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of which the lead says most expensive for centuries, but looking at the history it seems to go back and forth and say decades without any of them noting in the edit summary. The main page blurb says decades, and I would have fixed it to centuries if I new for sure which was correct. - Taxman Talk 04:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it only fair to note that I've started a debate about the (rather odd) mixed referencing style in Saffron (among other articles) here. Mikker (...) 03:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It is my understanding that saffron is poisonous, despite its use in foodstuffs. There is a Cornish delicacy known as Saffron Cake (see here for recipe) or Saffron bun, while this link comments that 10gm of saffron could prove fatal. As far as I am aware commercial bakers of saffron cake are required to hold a special license for the ingredient.
Although the Cornish connection may only warrant a mention, I think the article should note that saffron is toxic (just in case someone gets the urge to spend a stupid amount of money on some, and then swallow the lot!) LessHeard vanU 21:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC) ps. Nice article.
Hi. It's a beautiful article. Can the editors please include that Saffron is also called Kesar in India. Kesar (केसर) is a Hindi word derived from Sanskrit word Kesaravar (केसरवर). Citations are here and here. I would have done it myself but don't want to ruin the flow and style of this good article. It would be great if you could also set a re-direction of Kesar to this article. Please let me know of any questions/comments. Thanks for including the suggestion. Mahalo! -- Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 03:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I came here to try to gauge the article for an assessment for the Food and Drinks project, but when I read the article, I flinched. The readability is severely tainted by the overly detailed method of citation. Is there any particular reason for providing almost pedantic citations of a multitude of obviously uncontroversial facts found in the article? Who in their right mind would demand a citation for, say, the scientific name of the saffron crocus or that saffron is often adulterated?
Surely the massive list of references is not actually necessary to reference a fairly general article... How many general books on saffron and spices is actually necessary? Could at least some of them be moved to a further reading list? And why all the footnotes in the lead (two of them repeated twice)? It's supposed to be an overview of the rest of the article, meaning that it's already indirectly referenced.
Peter Isotalo 11:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
This is misleading. October is a spring month in the Southern Hemisphere. A clearer reference, such as "mid-autumn" is better. B.d.mills 01:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
"Human cultivators bred wild specimens by selecting for unusually long stigmas. Thus, a sterile mutant form of C. cartwrightianus, C. sativus, emerged in late Bronze Age Crete." "Thus?" This is a non sequitur bred of unfamiliarity with genetics, if, as I think, mutant triploidy is the operative concept here rather than human selection ...is it not?. -- Wetman 19:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the lethal dose of saffron? Entheta 17:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Whoever wrote this article clearly knows his/her subject quite well. But the subject of chemical inputs (i.e. use of synthetic herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, etc.) is not mentioned. Since very little saffron is marketed as organically grown, a section about this should be added to the article. Badagnani 00:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC) first please not that saffron is not lethal can you imagine the price of 1000 gms of saffron . everybody use only 1 gm in a month for 3 persons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.55.97 ( talk) 17:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I found the following information in two places in the article:
References:
Question: Does the wild ancestor of Saffron come from Southwest Asia or from Crete? Johan Lont 08:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Huttha pakaya kari balla so why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.255.54.235 ( talk) 03:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
"The word saffron originated from the 12th-century Old French term safran, which derives from the Latin word safranum. Safranum is also related to the Italian zafferano and Spanish azafrán.[7] Safranum comes from the Arabic word aṣfar (أَصْفَر), which means "yellow," via the paronymous zaʻfarān (زَعْفَرَان), the name of the spice in Arabic.[6]"
Someone want to tell me how Latin, a language some 2000 years old, obtained the word as a loan from Arabic, which is a mere 1500 years old? Rhialto 16:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ help}} There seems to be something wrong with the reference to image Saffran crocus sativus moist.jpg as used in the taxo template. Only the frame is visible. Unfortunately this error is transferred to WP in other languages, too, e g SV.WP. / 82.182.149.179 02:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Re putting a "Current Production of Saffron in the world" section in the middle of the first paragraph:
this was bought at a bazaar in alanya, turkey as "turkish safron". Is this dried safflower?? It doesn't look at all like the safran threads in the article, which were sold as "persian safron". Thank you. -- ExpImp talk con 21:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
As per this research, Saffron has many more medical properties than what we have probably listed. Ideally there should be another section on the medical properties of saffron. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arhant ( talk • contribs) 10:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I note that Tasmania is coloured light pink for "Minor producing nation" - since Tasmania is part of the nation of Australia, should not the entirety of Australia be in the same colour, even if only the island of Tasmania grows it? Octopug ( talk) 02:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, the last paragraph in the introduction says:
Is this sentence really necessary? While this sentence is interesting and informative in a Trivial Pursuit kind of way, it doesn't tell you anything about the origins of the English language word. I think the sentence should be removed. Loves Macs (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
What percent of the world's saffron comes from Spain?-- Foljiny ( talk) 00:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
this sentence makes no sense, is it a comparison of price or weight? "Saffron prices at wholesale and retail rates range from US$500 to US$5,000 per pound (US$1,100–11,000/kg)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.151.66 ( talk) 08:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Ancient Sanskrit texts indicate Saffron is indigenous to the Valley of Kashmir in Pampore region. No Persian invasion of Kashmir ever occurred, these are planted stories by some elements to obtain political mileage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.153 ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 9 February 2010
I think there is an error in the numbers of the atoms of the safranal group in the image showing the chemical structure of picrocrocin. In my opinion, according to the IUPAC name, number 1 should be exchanged with number 5 and number 2 with number 4. 92.107.81.152 ( talk) 21:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The pronunciation of 'saffron' provided, with a full second vowel rather than a schwa, is not standard in either British (RP) or American English. It seems to be widespread in 'Estuary English' type dialects. It's the spelling pronunciation so it may ultimately prevail but at present I'm guessing it sounds odd to most ears. Bacuru ( talk) 16:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)bacuru
The link to the citation for this is broken. Can we fix this or find another reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlevine ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a line saying that the export of saffron from India is banned. This is unsourced, but I thought that possibly some restriction was in place so I put a "dubious" tag on it. Anyone know anything about this? Blue Rasberry 14:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I have removed this from the intro:
"Saffron has further medicinal applications."
There is no reference, and this does not seem to fit with the preceeding paragraph.
If it does have direct medical benifits and it can be sourced (other than just speculation on herbalist sites) then it should be explained in the body. 90.219.4.114 ( talk) 14:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Why is "football fields" used as a unit of area in the "Trade and use" section? Please convert it to hectares and acres as soon as possible. Different varieties of football use fields of different sizes and often the size is in any case not exactly specified. Such informal, arbitrary, made-up "units" are completely unacceptable in the context of this and similar articles. Roger ( talk) 12:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Quoting article:
"(It requires)... (110,000-170,000 flowers or two football fields for a kilogram). Forty hours of labour are needed to pick 150,000 flowers."
That works out to about one flower per second. Are they hand-picked or is some "machinery" used?
Thanks, Wanderer57 ( talk) 19:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Saffron has long been an important colouring agent for textiles. The main purpose of its growth in England was to dye wool. The colouring is closely associated with the robes of Buddhist monks.
But the introduction of this article ignores these traditions and sums them all up in two words: "...........and textiles".
More needs to be said on this topic, starting with the introduction. The very first line ought to read: "Saffron is a spice and a colouring agent......."
The fact that there is no picture of a dyed textile is slack. There ought to be a pic of a Buddhist monk, since the colour has such a strong association with their robes.
I'm not happy about the illuminated manuscript. There are two yellow/orange colours, but the one that appears in the greatest amount in that picture (the paler, less orange colour) is probably not saffron. There is probably a better example than that.
Amandajm ( talk) 14:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a note for anyone watching this page: someone has suggested that this article should mention "Analysis of Saffron (Crocus sativus L. Stigma) Components by LC–MS–MS Ranjit Singh Verma, Deepak Middha Journal: Chromatographia - CHROMATOGRAPHIA , vol. 71, no. 1-2, pp. 117-123, 2010 DOI: 10.1365/s10337-009-1398-z" -- John of Reading ( talk) 07:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
This article has statements about medicinal uses of saffron, which should be sourced according to WP:MEDRS (meaning recent, secondary journal reviews rather than primary sources or non-medical reviews). I didn't see any text of concern (I believe most of the claims can be sourced), but I don't have journal access to the full-text of most of the secondary reviews that are PubMEd-indexed, and I don't speak the citation method used here. I believe the commented out section on research should be eliminated, since it uses primary sources that aren't necessary and seems to be leading to those obnoxious red error messages in the citations; secondary reviews are available that can be used to replace primary sources. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches explains how to locate secondary reviews in PubMed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Is there any good reason why, contrary to MOS:SMALLCAPS and general practice, authors' names in the citations are in small caps? Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This article is in bad need of further in-line citations. I haven't looked at the article further, but I might bring an FAR up for it at some point. Tezero ( talk) 17:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
This article has a lot of uncited text; can those be provided to avoid a Featured article review? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I am un-archiving the FAR needed messages, and increasing the archive time limit. This article still needs a Featured article review; there is considerable uncited text, medical claims need to be sourced to MEDRS-compliant sources, and there are missing "as of" dates on data. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
This article has statements about medicinal uses of saffron, which should be sourced according to WP:MEDRS (meaning recent, secondary journal reviews rather than primary sources or non-medical reviews). I didn't see any text of concern (I believe most of the claims can be sourced), but I don't have journal access to the full-text of most of the secondary reviews that are PubMEd-indexed, and I don't speak the citation method used here. I believe the commented out section on research should be eliminated, since it uses primary sources that aren't necessary and seems to be leading to those obnoxious red error messages in the citations; secondary reviews are available that can be used to replace primary sources. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches explains how to locate secondary reviews in PubMed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Is there any good reason why, contrary to MOS:SMALLCAPS and general practice, authors' names in the citations are in small caps? Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This article is in bad need of further in-line citations. I haven't looked at the article further, but I might bring an FAR up for it at some point. Tezero ( talk) 17:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
This article has a lot of uncited text; can those be provided to avoid a Featured article review? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The notion that it was first cultivated in Greece (Crete to be specific) is somewhat sketchy. The city of Azupiranu, from which Sargon of Akkad (2334 BC – 2279 BC) was said to have come, means "city of saffron". The source is also not exactly top quality. Bataaf van Oranje ( talk) 19:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I propose that Saffron (use) be merged into Saffron. The former was created by an account that is now blocked for sockpuppetry, and may contain useful information. However I thin it's unusual to split articles in this way. Sammy1339 ( talk) 20:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I have looked for reliable sources for this and have not found any. User:Pdgould what reliable sources describe this? Jytdog ( talk) 23:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Saffron. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
If Crocus sativus is the main article for "Species" information, why does Saffron have 7-times the "Description" ("Morphology") and 3-times the "Cultivation". I would move a lot of the "Species" content to Crocus sativus but it might appear to be vandalism to some. I feel it is important to separate the "plant" from the "spice" to keep the content concise. For example, the nutritional values in the infobox are for the spice, saffron, not the plant, Crocus sativus, which can be consumed in small amounts (I removed the binomial name from the title). The article is very good and I do not want it to suffer the bloat others have, e.g. Black pepper. User-duck ( talk) 19:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
This sentence below is removed due to its weak, low impact sources, supposition of "biological effects", and date and origin of research (#1 from 2007, i.e., outdated and unconfirmed; #2,3 from Iran) where traditional practices and in vitro research are accepted as proof of in vivo action. Certainly not the case; there are no high-quality publications supporting these statements. This is not even acceptable-quality preliminary in vitro evidence, let alone "biological effects". -- Zefr ( talk) 14:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Constituents of saffron have been found to act as NMDA receptor antagonists, monoamine reuptake inhibitors, and sigma receptor ligands in vitro. [1] [2] [3]
References
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Safran-Weinviertel Niederreiter 2 Gramm 8285.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 12, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-10-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 01:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
In what sense does this image "not work" with the "upright" parameter? I'm not seeing it. -- John ( talk) 15:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The nutrition section lists 1 tablespoon as a typical serving size. This seems ludicrously high - a typical saffron rice recipe calls for 1/8 teaspoon or a pinch for 6 servings.
From /info/en/?search=Common_Era: "For decades, it has been the global standard, recognized by international institutions such as the United Nations and the Universal Postal Union." Read the entire article, if you haven't already. You reversion of my edit is nothing less than Christian Sharia. I want you to justify it. Autodidact1 ( talk) 05:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Saffron. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I would like to propose a possible etymology of "saffron" from Median farnah-, Avestan xᵛarənah-, Sanskrit suvarṇa (सुवर्ण), all with the meaning of yellow, golden, yellow ochre, turmeric and, through a small semantic shift, glory, aura, fortune. 84.18.132.44 ( talk) 13:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Greetings Mate, first of all thanks for this wonderfull and well done article. Below you will find just nit picking on wording and editing. Since I'm not an Wikipedia editor (this is my first talk), I may be completely off base. :)
A hidden URL http://vs.aka-online.de/globalwpsearch/ was just inserted into the article. The URL leads to a site that hosts advertising, is not Wikipedia-affiliated, and has nothing compelling to offer on the subject of saffron — instead, it only functions as a search engine, a function that Wikipedia already has through its search box and interwiki links. Please see WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Links to commercial sites are fine, as long as they have "meaningful" and "relevant" content about saffron that is not already in this article. Thanks. Saravask 15:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
If this were still on FAC, I would now be objecting for "Too Many Pictures." This is out of hand, it looks like a photo-essay. Pick and choose. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 06:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Unless people object, I plan on splitting just split this article into four two pieces:
My goal is to get the main article under 40 70 kb (it was at 90–91 kb when featured).
History of saffron is up for peer review
here.
Saravask 03:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I also think that history is the most logical- and probably the only necessary daughter article.-- nixie 16:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
While it's good to have lots of notes, it is taking up a lot of vertical space, which looks bad to me. The references section is handled quite well I think, splitting them up into two rows, and I'd like to do the same thing to the notes, except my wiki-fu is weak, and I can't quite grok the markup. Could someone help out? Fieari 15:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed:
I oppose the addition of this gallery. Wikipedia is not a collection of images without text. These don't even have captions. Add as many images in the body text as you want to illustrate your point. All the other images should be moved to wikisource, just as we move large collections of quotes to wikiquote. savidan (talk) (e@) 16:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I immediately noticed some glaring errors in Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/March_20,_2006, which will be appearing on the main page in 9 days. Most obvious is the bizarre broken sentence "Saffron, which has for decades been the world's most expensive spice by weight.", but there are also numerous subtler errors (like not italicizing saffron in "The word saffron") and poor space usage. The overall effect of this box will be too bore to tears 99% of Wikipedia's readers, who will turn off as soon as the rambling discourse of the summarized intro begins with a lengthy series of botanical definitions ("The flower's three stigmas (the distal ends of the plant's carpels) and parts of its style (a stalk connecting the stigmas to the rest of the plant) are often dried and used in cooking as a seasoning and colouring agent.", when simply "Components of the flower are often dried and used in cooking as a seasoning and colouring agent." would work just as well for the main page's purposes!), which, though completely fine and appropriate for the article itself (since it will continue to use that terminology throughout the page), is very poor choice for the Wikipedia article. Even more heinous from an aesthetic perspective is the brutal error of using the exact same image for the main-page as is used at the very top of this page, even though we have dozens of even more beautiful and illustrative images available to use instead! Tragic. Luckily, admins can help edit to fix all of these errors before the thing actually appears on the main page; if I was one, I'd do it myself rather than bitching about it. :P - Silence 20:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
hello. "Historians believe that saffron first came to China with Mongol invaders by way of Persia. Yet saffron is mentioned in ancient Chinese medical texts, including the Pun Tsao ("Great Herbal") pharmacopoeia (pp. 1552–78), a tome dating from around 1600 BC . Compiled under Emperor Shen-Ung...", this piece of info is not correct:
Maybe someone would want to verify the info? Cheer.-- K.C. Tang 03:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of which the lead says most expensive for centuries, but looking at the history it seems to go back and forth and say decades without any of them noting in the edit summary. The main page blurb says decades, and I would have fixed it to centuries if I new for sure which was correct. - Taxman Talk 04:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is stunningly good.-- Deglr6328 05:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there a "best among featured" category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
This really does represent Wikipedia at its best. Nice work folks! — Matt Crypto 11:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
There's vandalism in the first two sentences of the article ("Saffron (IPA: ['sæːfɹən]) is a piece of shit spice. It sucks almost as much as this Wikipedia site does."), but I don't seem to be able to edit it out. Maybe this is because of the way the first paragraph is protected when it's on the main page? (The main page text is fine.) Anyway, I don't seem to be nearly as competent at using the delete key as I thought, so someone else should probably take care of that. 130.132.199.75 07:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone added info about Safranbolu's annual festival to the "Biology" section — this is bad. I moved (a reworded version of the) info to History of saffron. Otherwise, addition of more information (about things whose mention may be neglected in this article) is always welcome. Saravask 18:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd say most people have no idea what iodoform smells like. Could someone who has actually smelled saffron make a better comparison please? — Keenan Pepper 18:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I grew up in a partially Portuguese home, so I learned about assafroa early on, but only recently did I learn that "Portuguese saffron" [3] was actually safflower, not saffron. I've added this information to the page, but sadly, other than commercial links like the one I just gave (which are likely to be transient) I don't have a good reference for this naming to put in the article. I've added a note and hopefully my footnote here will suffice. If not, then I'll see what I can do about finding an offline source. - Harmil 20:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
First, let me say that this is a really great FA. But I have a question about the line Some forty hours of frenetic day-and-night labour are needed to pick 150,000 flowers. I followed the refs all the way to the originating BBC article and it is clear that the woman was talking about her whole family, so it wasn't 40 person-hours. Is there any sense of how many person-hours are required? Thanks, Banyan Tree 23:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I feel bad about letting some commercial links (no matter how informative they may be) while saying no to others — therefore, I'm thinking about just deleting the whole "External links" section. What do others think? Saravask 06:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a small bug in the article that makes one part of it difficult to read on a low resolution. See here how the "see also" section looks on my computer: http://whahay.net/pubaccess/Saffron-bug.png (you might need to copypaste the link into the address bar before it will load). Maybe someone could think of a way to fix this? -- Michiel Sikma 09:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Some of the information in the other two articles on saffron ( History of saffron and Trade and use of saffron) duplicate and overlap with this article. In particular, the others mention aspects of history, use in cuisine and medicine, trade, and so forth. All three are excellent articles, but wouldn't it be best if they were all merged into this one? Glane23 ( talk) 16:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Merge proposals closed and tags removed by ( User:Neelix ( Talk) July 19, 2008. I can't argue, in light of the opposition comments noted above and the lack of discussion in general. Glane23 ( talk) 17:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if this page could describe which parts of the plant are used. There is a sentence that seems to suggest that only the threads are used, but this is never clearly stated. - P. Matthews 206.191.0.138 19:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello. "Historians believe that saffron first came to China with Mongol invaders by way of Persia. Yet saffron is mentioned in ancient Chinese medical texts, including the Pun Tsao ("Great Herbal") pharmacopoeia (pp. 1552–78), a tome dating from around 1600 BC . Compiled under Emperor Shen-Ung...", this piece of info is not correct:
Maybe someone would want to verify the info? Cheer.-- K.C. Tang 03:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of which the lead says most expensive for centuries, but looking at the history it seems to go back and forth and say decades without any of them noting in the edit summary. The main page blurb says decades, and I would have fixed it to centuries if I new for sure which was correct. - Taxman Talk 04:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it only fair to note that I've started a debate about the (rather odd) mixed referencing style in Saffron (among other articles) here. Mikker (...) 03:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It is my understanding that saffron is poisonous, despite its use in foodstuffs. There is a Cornish delicacy known as Saffron Cake (see here for recipe) or Saffron bun, while this link comments that 10gm of saffron could prove fatal. As far as I am aware commercial bakers of saffron cake are required to hold a special license for the ingredient.
Although the Cornish connection may only warrant a mention, I think the article should note that saffron is toxic (just in case someone gets the urge to spend a stupid amount of money on some, and then swallow the lot!) LessHeard vanU 21:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC) ps. Nice article.
Hi. It's a beautiful article. Can the editors please include that Saffron is also called Kesar in India. Kesar (केसर) is a Hindi word derived from Sanskrit word Kesaravar (केसरवर). Citations are here and here. I would have done it myself but don't want to ruin the flow and style of this good article. It would be great if you could also set a re-direction of Kesar to this article. Please let me know of any questions/comments. Thanks for including the suggestion. Mahalo! -- Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 03:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I came here to try to gauge the article for an assessment for the Food and Drinks project, but when I read the article, I flinched. The readability is severely tainted by the overly detailed method of citation. Is there any particular reason for providing almost pedantic citations of a multitude of obviously uncontroversial facts found in the article? Who in their right mind would demand a citation for, say, the scientific name of the saffron crocus or that saffron is often adulterated?
Surely the massive list of references is not actually necessary to reference a fairly general article... How many general books on saffron and spices is actually necessary? Could at least some of them be moved to a further reading list? And why all the footnotes in the lead (two of them repeated twice)? It's supposed to be an overview of the rest of the article, meaning that it's already indirectly referenced.
Peter Isotalo 11:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
This is misleading. October is a spring month in the Southern Hemisphere. A clearer reference, such as "mid-autumn" is better. B.d.mills 01:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
"Human cultivators bred wild specimens by selecting for unusually long stigmas. Thus, a sterile mutant form of C. cartwrightianus, C. sativus, emerged in late Bronze Age Crete." "Thus?" This is a non sequitur bred of unfamiliarity with genetics, if, as I think, mutant triploidy is the operative concept here rather than human selection ...is it not?. -- Wetman 19:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the lethal dose of saffron? Entheta 17:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Whoever wrote this article clearly knows his/her subject quite well. But the subject of chemical inputs (i.e. use of synthetic herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, etc.) is not mentioned. Since very little saffron is marketed as organically grown, a section about this should be added to the article. Badagnani 00:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC) first please not that saffron is not lethal can you imagine the price of 1000 gms of saffron . everybody use only 1 gm in a month for 3 persons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.55.97 ( talk) 17:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I found the following information in two places in the article:
References:
Question: Does the wild ancestor of Saffron come from Southwest Asia or from Crete? Johan Lont 08:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Huttha pakaya kari balla so why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.255.54.235 ( talk) 03:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
"The word saffron originated from the 12th-century Old French term safran, which derives from the Latin word safranum. Safranum is also related to the Italian zafferano and Spanish azafrán.[7] Safranum comes from the Arabic word aṣfar (أَصْفَر), which means "yellow," via the paronymous zaʻfarān (زَعْفَرَان), the name of the spice in Arabic.[6]"
Someone want to tell me how Latin, a language some 2000 years old, obtained the word as a loan from Arabic, which is a mere 1500 years old? Rhialto 16:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ help}} There seems to be something wrong with the reference to image Saffran crocus sativus moist.jpg as used in the taxo template. Only the frame is visible. Unfortunately this error is transferred to WP in other languages, too, e g SV.WP. / 82.182.149.179 02:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Re putting a "Current Production of Saffron in the world" section in the middle of the first paragraph:
this was bought at a bazaar in alanya, turkey as "turkish safron". Is this dried safflower?? It doesn't look at all like the safran threads in the article, which were sold as "persian safron". Thank you. -- ExpImp talk con 21:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
As per this research, Saffron has many more medical properties than what we have probably listed. Ideally there should be another section on the medical properties of saffron. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arhant ( talk • contribs) 10:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I note that Tasmania is coloured light pink for "Minor producing nation" - since Tasmania is part of the nation of Australia, should not the entirety of Australia be in the same colour, even if only the island of Tasmania grows it? Octopug ( talk) 02:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, the last paragraph in the introduction says:
Is this sentence really necessary? While this sentence is interesting and informative in a Trivial Pursuit kind of way, it doesn't tell you anything about the origins of the English language word. I think the sentence should be removed. Loves Macs (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
What percent of the world's saffron comes from Spain?-- Foljiny ( talk) 00:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
this sentence makes no sense, is it a comparison of price or weight? "Saffron prices at wholesale and retail rates range from US$500 to US$5,000 per pound (US$1,100–11,000/kg)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.151.66 ( talk) 08:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Ancient Sanskrit texts indicate Saffron is indigenous to the Valley of Kashmir in Pampore region. No Persian invasion of Kashmir ever occurred, these are planted stories by some elements to obtain political mileage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.153 ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 9 February 2010
I think there is an error in the numbers of the atoms of the safranal group in the image showing the chemical structure of picrocrocin. In my opinion, according to the IUPAC name, number 1 should be exchanged with number 5 and number 2 with number 4. 92.107.81.152 ( talk) 21:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The pronunciation of 'saffron' provided, with a full second vowel rather than a schwa, is not standard in either British (RP) or American English. It seems to be widespread in 'Estuary English' type dialects. It's the spelling pronunciation so it may ultimately prevail but at present I'm guessing it sounds odd to most ears. Bacuru ( talk) 16:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)bacuru
The link to the citation for this is broken. Can we fix this or find another reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlevine ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a line saying that the export of saffron from India is banned. This is unsourced, but I thought that possibly some restriction was in place so I put a "dubious" tag on it. Anyone know anything about this? Blue Rasberry 14:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I have removed this from the intro:
"Saffron has further medicinal applications."
There is no reference, and this does not seem to fit with the preceeding paragraph.
If it does have direct medical benifits and it can be sourced (other than just speculation on herbalist sites) then it should be explained in the body. 90.219.4.114 ( talk) 14:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Why is "football fields" used as a unit of area in the "Trade and use" section? Please convert it to hectares and acres as soon as possible. Different varieties of football use fields of different sizes and often the size is in any case not exactly specified. Such informal, arbitrary, made-up "units" are completely unacceptable in the context of this and similar articles. Roger ( talk) 12:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Quoting article:
"(It requires)... (110,000-170,000 flowers or two football fields for a kilogram). Forty hours of labour are needed to pick 150,000 flowers."
That works out to about one flower per second. Are they hand-picked or is some "machinery" used?
Thanks, Wanderer57 ( talk) 19:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Saffron has long been an important colouring agent for textiles. The main purpose of its growth in England was to dye wool. The colouring is closely associated with the robes of Buddhist monks.
But the introduction of this article ignores these traditions and sums them all up in two words: "...........and textiles".
More needs to be said on this topic, starting with the introduction. The very first line ought to read: "Saffron is a spice and a colouring agent......."
The fact that there is no picture of a dyed textile is slack. There ought to be a pic of a Buddhist monk, since the colour has such a strong association with their robes.
I'm not happy about the illuminated manuscript. There are two yellow/orange colours, but the one that appears in the greatest amount in that picture (the paler, less orange colour) is probably not saffron. There is probably a better example than that.
Amandajm ( talk) 14:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a note for anyone watching this page: someone has suggested that this article should mention "Analysis of Saffron (Crocus sativus L. Stigma) Components by LC–MS–MS Ranjit Singh Verma, Deepak Middha Journal: Chromatographia - CHROMATOGRAPHIA , vol. 71, no. 1-2, pp. 117-123, 2010 DOI: 10.1365/s10337-009-1398-z" -- John of Reading ( talk) 07:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
This article has statements about medicinal uses of saffron, which should be sourced according to WP:MEDRS (meaning recent, secondary journal reviews rather than primary sources or non-medical reviews). I didn't see any text of concern (I believe most of the claims can be sourced), but I don't have journal access to the full-text of most of the secondary reviews that are PubMEd-indexed, and I don't speak the citation method used here. I believe the commented out section on research should be eliminated, since it uses primary sources that aren't necessary and seems to be leading to those obnoxious red error messages in the citations; secondary reviews are available that can be used to replace primary sources. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches explains how to locate secondary reviews in PubMed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Is there any good reason why, contrary to MOS:SMALLCAPS and general practice, authors' names in the citations are in small caps? Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This article is in bad need of further in-line citations. I haven't looked at the article further, but I might bring an FAR up for it at some point. Tezero ( talk) 17:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
This article has a lot of uncited text; can those be provided to avoid a Featured article review? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I am un-archiving the FAR needed messages, and increasing the archive time limit. This article still needs a Featured article review; there is considerable uncited text, medical claims need to be sourced to MEDRS-compliant sources, and there are missing "as of" dates on data. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
This article has statements about medicinal uses of saffron, which should be sourced according to WP:MEDRS (meaning recent, secondary journal reviews rather than primary sources or non-medical reviews). I didn't see any text of concern (I believe most of the claims can be sourced), but I don't have journal access to the full-text of most of the secondary reviews that are PubMEd-indexed, and I don't speak the citation method used here. I believe the commented out section on research should be eliminated, since it uses primary sources that aren't necessary and seems to be leading to those obnoxious red error messages in the citations; secondary reviews are available that can be used to replace primary sources. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches explains how to locate secondary reviews in PubMed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Is there any good reason why, contrary to MOS:SMALLCAPS and general practice, authors' names in the citations are in small caps? Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This article is in bad need of further in-line citations. I haven't looked at the article further, but I might bring an FAR up for it at some point. Tezero ( talk) 17:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
This article has a lot of uncited text; can those be provided to avoid a Featured article review? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The notion that it was first cultivated in Greece (Crete to be specific) is somewhat sketchy. The city of Azupiranu, from which Sargon of Akkad (2334 BC – 2279 BC) was said to have come, means "city of saffron". The source is also not exactly top quality. Bataaf van Oranje ( talk) 19:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I propose that Saffron (use) be merged into Saffron. The former was created by an account that is now blocked for sockpuppetry, and may contain useful information. However I thin it's unusual to split articles in this way. Sammy1339 ( talk) 20:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I have looked for reliable sources for this and have not found any. User:Pdgould what reliable sources describe this? Jytdog ( talk) 23:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Saffron. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
If Crocus sativus is the main article for "Species" information, why does Saffron have 7-times the "Description" ("Morphology") and 3-times the "Cultivation". I would move a lot of the "Species" content to Crocus sativus but it might appear to be vandalism to some. I feel it is important to separate the "plant" from the "spice" to keep the content concise. For example, the nutritional values in the infobox are for the spice, saffron, not the plant, Crocus sativus, which can be consumed in small amounts (I removed the binomial name from the title). The article is very good and I do not want it to suffer the bloat others have, e.g. Black pepper. User-duck ( talk) 19:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
This sentence below is removed due to its weak, low impact sources, supposition of "biological effects", and date and origin of research (#1 from 2007, i.e., outdated and unconfirmed; #2,3 from Iran) where traditional practices and in vitro research are accepted as proof of in vivo action. Certainly not the case; there are no high-quality publications supporting these statements. This is not even acceptable-quality preliminary in vitro evidence, let alone "biological effects". -- Zefr ( talk) 14:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Constituents of saffron have been found to act as NMDA receptor antagonists, monoamine reuptake inhibitors, and sigma receptor ligands in vitro. [1] [2] [3]
References
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Safran-Weinviertel Niederreiter 2 Gramm 8285.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 12, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-10-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 01:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
In what sense does this image "not work" with the "upright" parameter? I'm not seeing it. -- John ( talk) 15:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The nutrition section lists 1 tablespoon as a typical serving size. This seems ludicrously high - a typical saffron rice recipe calls for 1/8 teaspoon or a pinch for 6 servings.
From /info/en/?search=Common_Era: "For decades, it has been the global standard, recognized by international institutions such as the United Nations and the Universal Postal Union." Read the entire article, if you haven't already. You reversion of my edit is nothing less than Christian Sharia. I want you to justify it. Autodidact1 ( talk) 05:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Saffron. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I would like to propose a possible etymology of "saffron" from Median farnah-, Avestan xᵛarənah-, Sanskrit suvarṇa (सुवर्ण), all with the meaning of yellow, golden, yellow ochre, turmeric and, through a small semantic shift, glory, aura, fortune. 84.18.132.44 ( talk) 13:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)