Talk:Flower/Archive 1

Image placement

The sunflower image overlaps the text in Opera browser. Part of the para on the right of the flower cannot be read. This displays fine in IE. Jay 13:54, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Is it any better now? Angela 14:12, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

Yes image and text are separated now. Thanx :) The text still touches the image in Opera, where as there is a tiny gap in IE. But they are browser incompatibilites I guess. Another good reason to always have the image on the right side of the page. Jay 14:24, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wow, that is bad (Opera). There are lots of images on the left in Wikipedia. Could it have been something else about the layout (not just the fact was placed on left) but maybe the formatting used to place on left? - Marshman 17:14, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It was ok on the left. Someone else has changed it since it was fixed. Angela 17:22, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

I think the image placement follows the general standards of wikipedia image placement, so nothing wrong with that. I checked out with some other pages also, and the problem still exists with Opera. e.g., Arundhati Roy (this uses DIV tag). The images and text separation is fine in Opera for some left sided images, e.g., in Mohandas Gandhi and Shah Jahan. Thats because it uses TABLE tag. So DIV is the culprit. Jay 19:10, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Are you sure divs are the problem. When this was in a div and on the left it worked in Opera. Angela 20:21, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we're talking abt the problem of text touching image and not image overlapping text. The latter problem was solved by Angela's edit. I checked out the left-side image suggestions from Wikipedia:Image markup. If the markup is followed exactly, the image and text come out beautifully in Opera as well. What's missing here in the DIV tag is a "margin:0 1em 1em 0;" whatever that means. Include that and it works fine. Jay 20:46, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I can see that, I am using Opera too. Maybe right-align will be better? --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 01:44, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I moved the image to the right, as there are lot of images posed on the right too, see History_of_the_PRC_(1976-present). Jay's right, adding "margin:0 1em 1em 0;" can solve the problem, it works ok in Opera then. --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 01:54, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I cannot tell from above what works and what does not on Opera. But if the problem is (was) only the text touching the image then the margin statement should fix that. For information, "margin:0 1em 1em 0" means the following: "Add the following spaces around the image: top none, right 1, bottom 1, and left none" (note clockwide from top) and would be appropriate for a left aligned (left side) image. - Marshman 00:48, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Floral formula

Could somebody explain what a floral formula is, either here or in its own article? Tuf-Kat 04:31, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll put something up - Marshman 00:00, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Flower Evolution

I'd like to see discussion of the evolution of the flower.

Flower in Daily Life/Romantic Love

Could somebody write about flower in daily life or in romantic love? Which kind of flower should I bring to sick people, to love one, or for funeral, etc.Roscoe x 18:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An interesting question, Roscoe X. There are many flowers that have special symbolism, so that would be a worthwhile subject to cover in an article. As for "doing the right thing" in the situations you describe, I hold that when uncertain, juist bring what pleases you. Few people really hold to the symbolisms anyway, so it is doubtful you could make a social blunder by bringing the wrong kind of floral arrangement. - Marshman 17:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've started a new category on flowers as symbols in the hope that someone will expand on it. honeydew 13:47, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mistletoe is not a flower - Marshman 18:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's true; didn't think of that. I've taken it out. Anyone know of any more examples to add? - honeydew 01:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are flowers that are symbolic of countries or regimes - Marshman 02:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect Link

The flower encyclopedia link has been discontinued or moved or something. I just tried it, and it didn't work. Does anyone know what happened or if there's a way to note that the link doesn't work? - Clevomon 21:14, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I had no problem. Outside links do not always work, but there would be no point in noting anything other than what information one might expect to find there. Not our responsibility if not working, as long as only temporary. If permernant, then delete link from article. - Marshman 02:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

New image

Some arranged flowers

I'd like to propose this image for inclusion in the article.

You might want to put that in the floristry article since it shows flower arrangement, used for decoration. If you want to put it in this article, try to identify the species. SCHZMO ✍ 13:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Flower name

Name this and make me happy!

Hey, does anybody know the name of the flower in the photo to the left? I've already asked the same question at sci ref desk. __earth ^(Talk) 07:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Plant Vagina

The page Plant Vagina should redirect here, can someone do this for me scince I am not sure how?--GorillazFan Adam 05:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No Flower History?

I was puzzled, upon coming here to check for any new info on flower evolution, to discover that there is not even a section for it in the entire article. I generally think of "evolution of" to be the second most important part of an umbrella "creature" article, like snake, bird, et cetera, and therefore of course of their herbal equivilents. As with learning the history of anything, often much of the best, most useful information on a topic tends to be wrapped up in how it came to be, in the most comprehensive and useful way.

Anyhow, to help rectify this absence, I put together a little Flower evolution section, hopefully it's a tolerable start.--Kaz 16:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject?

This might be the wrong place to ask this but is there a plants/flowers wikiproject? I have tons of (super-)macro plant photos I've taken sitting on my computer some of which I'm sure would be useful to a WP article somewhere. However the problem is I don't really have a clue what any of the plants are. If I could hand them to an intermediary who knew what they were (e.g. upload them to a WikiProject) then they could be put to good use. --cfp 02:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed a Plant Wikiproject. :) --NoahElhardt 17:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

HTML errors in the beginning??

The article starts with A flower, (<Old French flo(u)r<Latin florem<flos), also know. I wonder, should all those < symbols really be there? Looks wrong/confusing to me. rgrds, mnemo 10:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Article Re-Work: Structure

This article is in dire need of a face-lift (see above). Here is a proposed restructuring to get us started. Please feel free to get involved.

Intro

• Flower function
• Flower anatomy
  • Floral formula
  • Flower types?
• Pollination
  • Attraction methods (color, uv, scent, mimmicry)
  • Pollination mechanism
  • Flower - pollinator relationships?
• Fertilization
• Seed production
  • Seed distribution?
• Uses by humans
  • Edible flowers
  • Horticulture/floristry
  • Flowers in art
  • Symbolism

I don't know how much of this is within the scope of this article. Should the whole reproductive cycle of flowering plants be included here? --NoahElhardt 05:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Noel Noah, good start. I think that the evolution of the flower should come after function and before anatomy, because the anatomy should be seen in light of evolution. It can and should be just a single paragraph or two on flower evolution and there should be a main page on flower evolution, considering its importance in evolutionary genetics today. I would suggest Seed production be short, also, as this this should be its own page, too, and that Seed dispersal be a separate subject, rather than a sub-category of seed production, as the role of the flower in pollination, fertilization and dispersal are the major divisions in the flower as part of the life cycle of the angiosperm. Also after flower types, and within that category should be a category on aggregate flowers, or inflorescences, and then linked to the article on inflorescences. I'm assuming there is one. Also there should be a main article on flower types with all the variable types, from the undifferntiated to the highly derived. There is a main article on pollination, I'm assuming, that lists the various mechanisms? The flower pollinator relationships should actually be the section on co-evolution of the flower and its pollinators, I think. This will be a lot of work. Let me know what you think of my comments and additions. KP Botany 21:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning on the placement of the Flower evolution section (whoops, totally missed that one first time around...), but feel it less important than floral anamoty and pollination/flower cycle, which both deal with what the flower currently is rather than how it got there. Then again, a short section on floral evolution could serve as a "history" section and would work well to introduce the function and need of a flower. I've added a subsection for co-evolution with pollinators, but feel a short section on how the flower color/morphology/blooming time is linked to its specific pollinator(s) would be informative at that point. We can go farther into how those relationships developed later on. How does the following look?:

Intro

• Flower function
• Flower anatomy
  • Floral formula
  • Flower types
    • Aggregate flowers
• Pollination
  • Attraction methods (color, uv, scent, mimmicry)
  • Pollination mechanism
  • Flower - pollinator relationships
• Fertilization
• Seed production
  • Seed distribution
• Evolution of the flower
  • Coevolution with pollinators
• Uses by humans
  • Edible flowers
  • Horticulture/floristry
  • Flowers in art
  • Symbolism

--NoahElhardt 18:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Noah, I think for a general purpose encyclopedia this might work as well or better than my idea of putting evolution earlier, especially if you include coevolution with pollinators after introducing both the flowers and their pollinators.

Seed dispersal should be its own category, not a sub-category of seed production. It isn't a subcategory of seed production at all. "Dispersal" is the correct term.

How about this? KP Botany 19:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Intro

• Flower function
• Flower anatomy
  • Floral formula
  • Flower types
    • Aggregate flowers
• Pollination
  • Attraction methods (color, uv, scent, mimicry)
  • Pollination mechanism
  • Flower - pollinator relationships
• Fertilization
• Seed production
• Seed dispersal
• Evolution of the flower
  • Coevolution with pollinators
• Uses by humans
  • Edible flowers
  • Horticulture/floristry
  • Flowers in art
  • Symbolism

2nd image ?

anybody know the proper name for that? I'm no botanist, but I don't think blue summer flower is all that descriptive... Zotel - the Stub Maker 14:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like an Hydrangea (Hydrangea macrophylla) to me. Either way, it should be removed, as it does not add anything to the article, and secondly because it is technically not a flower, but rather a cluster of flowers. --NoahElhardt 15:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Could it be useful as an example of a flower cluster, one of the multiple ways flowers are attache to their "base" plants? Zotel - the Stub Maker 18:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Floral variety in images

Can we add some floral variety in images instead of the heavy lily/monocot emphasis? I'm not good at formatting images, so I'm not the person to do, but let's leave one monocot, and add an eudicot, and some basal monocot, and something from horticulture. KP Botany 00:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Still really overdoing the monocots, can someone please make sure there are basal angiosperms, monocots, dicots, horticultural, etc., so the images are of a great variety, not concentrated in one area, with half representing monocots, and the other half the rest of the plant kingdom? Love the image of the child sniffing the flower. A water lily or magnolia would be great. KP Botany 00:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I plan to do some more work on this article in the coming week... I have lots of flower images on my laptop (and there's plenty of excellent ones already on the commons), so I'll see what I can do. --NoahElhardt 01:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Blue flower picture?

I contacted the owner of the blue flower picture at the top of this article. When ask he did not know what type of flower it was. Does anyone know? If so, please contact me, and feel free to update the caption with the correct name under the picture itself. Thanks. Veracious Rey 00:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This page really needs some cleanup. Is anyone interested in collaborating to turn this into a well written, organized, and illustrated article? Just as an example, here are a few problems I see just from glancing over the page:

• The flower anatomy picture used was created (by me) to illustrate Sarracenia flowers in particular, since they are so abnormal. It would be great to illustrate flower anatomy with a picture of a more typical flower. I can probably make one of these.
• Many flower parts should have their own articles, giving more details on their function. (ex., how does the pollen reach the ovules?)
• Is the poem in the "Flowers in arts" section really necessary?
• the "Flowers in gardening and horticulture" section only has a series of links right now.
• The "list of flowers" in the see also section seem rather random and can never be conclusive, and so serves little or no purpose.
• This article has a grand total of 1 reference right now. Some more citations would be good.

There is some good material in this article that can be re-used, but a lot of stuff needs clearing out and a lot of material is badly missing. This is probably one of the most imporant articles in biology, and should be quality. Is anyone with me on this? --NoahElhardt 22:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the poem is necessary, nor the external link to "Ah Sun-Flower". I lack the background in botany to really help create the type of content needed in this topic but your plan sounds good.Camillia 14:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup: posted 12/2006

Well, I've spent the last three hours trying to clean this article up. Whew!!! This is most extensive undertaking I've spent in my time here on Wiki. Anyway, I have deleted a few unnecessary pics, added one new pic, and resized all of them so as to bring uniformity to the article. The different sizes and various placements had everything looking sloppy.

I have merged two sections and added a redirect to the main article on the topic of dispersal. There were two blank headings (if you can believe that), so I simply deleted them. Simple enough! Amazing what you'll find when no one is really paying much attention.

Also, I got rid of some ridiculous links to web pages that are hardly worthy of being on Wikipedia. So I added three more links, one to Britannica and a flower conservatory, and a third to a pretty nifty flower encyclopedia with valuable information. I also cleaned up the "see also" section" with links to related articles, such as plants. I didn't rewrite much in the article, because this isn't my strength as an editor. But after all I've done, I think the article looks much cleaner, more encyclopedic, and will be better recieved by other readers. Feel free to comment on my talk page. I'm going to see about adding a tag letting everyone know this article needs help as far as the written content goes.Veracious Rey 02:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on a few more comments, I resized to smaller all the pics, and re-added the wiki language tools I accidently deleted. Veracious Rey 08:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

New Image

I removed the newly added close-up of a cactus flower, and put it on the Cactus page, where it shows well the large numbers of stamens, and relates to another image on the page. I think this page needs something else, because of all the blank space to the right of the index, but not a close-up in particular. KP Botany 00:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see that there is more on this page on human uses for flowers, than there are about flowers themselves! Personally, I think it would be helpful to list the various different kinds of flowers, with a short list of examples of each type. Did you know that flowers use sexual reproduction and not asexual reproduction 71.217.98.158 19:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "various different kinds"? There are many different ways to characterize flowers.--Curtis Clark 19:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Lacks a lot of citations

That pretty much summarizes what I wanted to say. Lots of good statements without source citing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jjuarezr (talk • contribs) 23:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Amborella

I reverted "Recent DNA analysis has determined that the oldest surviving flowering plant species is Amborella trichopoda on the Pacific island of New Caledonia." As written, it is patently false: DNA evidence could never show that it is the oldest species, since it could be a recent speciation in an otherwise extinct lineage, and the DNA evidence would be the same. I suspect the editor wanted to comment on the age of the lineage, but even there it is tricky: the lineage of all angiosperms except the Amborella lineage is exactly the same as the age of the Amborella lineage. The most accurate way to put it is that Amborella is the sister group to all the rest of the angiosperms.--Curtis Clark 05:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The solution here was not to reverse, but to reword. This species has in fact been placed at the base of the phylogenetic tree of the angiosperms. A reference was cited, but none for the reversion. Reword, don't revert. Tmangray 15:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You still don't get it. The species cannot possibly be placed at the base of the phylogenetic tree. The species is extant today, and there is no evidence at all whatsoever that the same species existed back in the mid-Cretaceous or whenever. It's the lineage that's old, and it is no more or less correct to say that it is at the base of the tree than it is to say that the lineage of the rest of the angiosperms is at the base of Amborellas tree. I reworded your restoration to make this all clear.--Curtis Clark 04:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I accept the rewording, but the species, or the language about being basal is from the researchers. Of course, the species extant today is not exactly like whatever existed those millions of years ago, but relative to other species, it is apparently less changed, and thus provides valuable clues and information about the transition from non-flowering to flowering plants. Tmangray 18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, many researchers use language that obscures, rather than clarifies, the import of their discoveries. I agree that Amborella provides valuable clues—in fact, its importance is difficult to overestimate—but the "less changed" part is something that can and must be described on a feature-by-feature basis, using the principles of outgroup comparison.

An analogy would be to say that the first birds looked like crocodiles, since the crocodylians are the sister group to the birds/dinosaurs. Fortunately, there are fossils that, by their morphology, seem to just precede the croc-dino split, and they look like neither crocs nor dinos. But it's the morphology of the crocs, especially their plesiomorphies (as well as the plesiomorphies of the dinos) that allow us to assign the fossils to just before the split. So in a sense, Amborella is the crocodile of the angiosperms.--Curtis Clark 03:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sarracenia picture

″Chess flower″

Sarracenia has a very distinct and peculiar flower anatomy (style). Maybe a more "conventional" flower would be more useful. What do you think about something more like this Fritillaria? Aelwyn 16:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I made the Sarracenia flower diagram to show its unusual characteristics, and was surprised when it was placed on the flower page. I agree that a more typical flower would be better. While I would prefer a dicot (monocots are over-used in this context), anything that has all of the flower parts clearly labeled would be fine by me. I just haven't had the time to put together another well-made picture/diagram. If you do, please feel free. --NoahElhardt 17:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Unidentified flower

I saw this flower on the forest floor at about 800ft elevation in Portland, OR. Wondering if anyone knows what it might be? I assume it's a wild flower, thought it might be an orchid or iris but doesn't really look quite like either. If you know, feel free to add to the description. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 09:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Genus is Trillium Aelwyn 10:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Morphology section > Include Penduncle with Pedicel

As long as the page is very detailed, would it make sense to add Peduncle in Morphology? Wouldn't the stem of a flower be the named "pedicel", but with the exception that its not a single flower on a single stalk? If that's right, not all flowers are on pedicels, but only flowers that are part of an inflorescence. Did I get that right? : - ) ... For example, the flower of a Trillium is not on a pedicel, because its a single flower on the stem.... Check it out and post feedback. Mdvaden 00:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A peduncle holds one flower, when the inflorescence is composed of two or more flowers the peduncle is the stem that holds the pedicels that attaches to the single flowers. 03:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A peduncle is the stem of an inflorescence, not of a flower. I suppose in the case of a solitary inflorescence, the inflorescence could be composed of a single flower.--Curtis Clark 03:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a good case for some good diagrams, as Curtis Clark says a peduncle is the stem that holds the inflorescence to a main stem, I was working from the other direction and that is not as clear. If the plant only produces single flowers then its termed a peduncle like in a number of the monocots. Another term that some what relates is a scape, which can be thought of as a modified peduncle rising from the ground with reduced leaves. Hardyplants 04:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. My college text book for horticulture, listed a single stem for a single flower as a peduncle. Maybe the definition changed, although I found two online references yesterday mentioning that a singled stemmed flower had a peduncle.

The diagrams you suggested would be handy to add. The resouces I found, indicated that Curtis Clark is right about a peduncle being the stem of an inflourescence, but added further that a peduncle is the stem of a single flower.

At least this one should be easier to figure out than my quest to learn what the lilies were I saw in the Darlingtonia bog this week. I thought they were just lilies, until the brochure asked a question that implied they were the Darlingtonia flowers. But it seems that they are a different lily, also orange red. Mdvaden 19:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's one example of an older document, in case definitions changed: Harvard Univertity / Arnold Arboretum Document from 1940

Recent Resource: University of Delaware Botanical Mdvaden 19:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Morphology > Add "Sessile" ??

In Morphology - aside from the Peduncle matter - the section seems to imply that every flower is on a pedecil. What about flowers that are "sessile"? Would that be a good spot to mention sessile for a distinction? Mdvaden 19:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sessile is not really a morphological organ per-say but describes how the organ is attached, adding that flowers that do not have pedicils or peduncles are joined to the stem or branch with out stems are sessile would be useful, some inflorescences are composed completely of sessile flowers, like many 'mints' with verticels. Hardyplants 03:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We have to be careful that this page does not get bogged down in to many terms, there are a few hundred words used to describe flower parts and how they are placed and develop on the plant. Hardyplants 04:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, no need to bog down, and if not all flowers are on pedicils, then the phrase should be changed, maybe in a simple way like you suggested. I didn't think that more info was needed, just clear and accurate info. That's the tricky thing about info - the less there is, the easier it is to be accurate. But accuracy is the aim. Thanks for reading the note. Mdvaden 01:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

External link www.flowers-pho tos.eu

Why this site has been removed repeatedly from External links? I think that there isn't any reason, if so I'll add the site again! Please reply if you know any reason. 87.4.2.66 18:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Marco Colli

There are many hundred websites that have pictures of flowers on them, and many that have more and properly ID'd plants. These type of links do not really help us in describing the subject matter, it appears semi-commercial in nature, also it has in correct information... the picture for Alchemilla alpina does not show the flowers of Alchemilla - though there are some leaves in the lower right side that are from a Alchemilla species. Hardyplants 19:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a commercial site because it doesn't sell photos or plants... then a mistake can occur because the site accepts users's share (as wiki). However the flower Alchemilla alpina was classified by a botanist (then what flower is it?). Finally I do not know many sites with hundreds photos of wild flowers: can you tell me some? [Thanks for reply and... excuse my bad English] 80.104.1.191 11:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Marco Colli

It's a commercial site because it hosts Ads by Google. Having a Wikipedia link directs traffic to it, which financially benefits the site owner. That means it must meet a higher standard in terms of relevance--it needs to provide something that no other link can provide, that relates directly to the article, and that doesn't duplicate information already in the article.--Curtis Clark 14:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

image of rare flowers

I agree we need a higher quality picture. You have a great and rare subject with this plant and if the picture was of higher quality, it would deserve a place on this page, but the image is washed out and low in resolution. I would fix it my self if I thought I could improve it, but I fear I can't.Hardyplants 01:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Hardyplants and Fir0002 Aelwyn 06:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

adding a new language

This is not allowed to edit this page, then how to add an article in some other language? I wanted to add this: fa:گل گیاه --Iranway (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added it for you[1], semi protection does not allow a new account to edit for a few days, but after you'l be able to. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary Bias?

Err, folks, to my understanding, wikipedia attempts to be an organized collection of facts. If I am wrong on that matter please inform me. As I can not have replies before I write the comment, I will continue under the assumption stated in the first sentence. So now I wonder why you have evolutionary information on flowers in here. It should at least be labeled as theoretical information: not fact. If you can prove that the evolution section in the article is true beyond a shadow of a doubt or point me to someone who already has, not only will I be thoroughly impressed, then I would see no problem with it being labeled as fact. As this has not been done insofar as I noticed, I believe there need to be changes made. As I am not particularly knowlegeable on the subject of flowers and came to wikipedia for information on the aforementioned subject, I do not believe I can make adequate changes. Please get back to me or make a move in a neutral direction or both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helk62 (talk •

This article is in the area of botany, which is a science, and science doesn't deal with "true beyond a shadow of a doubt," but only with observations of the physical universe. KP Botany 18:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Science, by definition, does not give or look for any absolute truth, as religion does. Science only tries to give problems the explanation that seems more reasonable and that rises the fewer other questions only using the poor and uncertain data we can detect with our senses (physical quantities). Any explanation that involves a supernatural force must then be rejected by science, in the end, because of the very nature of it. We cannot really believe in science, as it explains us many things, but does not deal with any real truth. On the other hand, we cannot use religion to solve scientific problems. When an apple falls we say it was because of the gravity, but in fact it is the opposite: we invented gravity because apples used to fall and keep falling. It explained and keeps explaining our experience very well. We invented evolution because it explained many things and we still talk about it (or "believe" in it) because it keeps explaining more and more. I'm a science student and an agnostic, I think evolution really happened and that it is still happening, just because it seems a very reasonable and elegant explanation to me. If you try to understand what I mean (apart from my laughable English), you will. If you don't want to, please stop bothering. Comments are welcome. Aelwyn 19:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for the enlightening edits gentlemen. --Helk62 01:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. KP Botany 05:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, I get it now! Aewyn says that "we invented gravity." Makes perfect sense now! Perhaps that's why all the dinosaurs became extinct, because we humans had not yet invented gravity, and they all just floated away from the planet! Thank YOU for your perfect logic. —Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead illustration

Although no one has come up with a fully satisfactory lead illustration for this article, the one recently added by User:Alvesgaspar is especially unfortunate, in that it consists mainly of capitula of Asteraceae (making it even harder to convince amateurs that the capitulum is an inflorescence, not a flower), and even the two single-flower examples are radially symmetric, with showy petals. It would really be better to have but a single example than to imply that this image is in any way representative of the article.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of the addition, but Curtis Clark has a very good point, daises are not really flowers but collections of small flowers. Also many plants do not have flowers that are large and showy - there is much greater diversity in real flowers than what is shown and its currently deceptive with all the "daisy" like flowers. Its pretty but not illustrative of the subject. Hardyplants (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think you are right, the main intent of the illustration is aesthetical, please fell free to replace it with a better one, Anyway I'll try to compile a new and more representative poster with my limited gallery of flowers (mostly Asteraceae, I'm afraid) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not use images from Wikimedia Commons? They all have licensing appropriate to that use. Your basic layout idea is a good one; it just needs better examples.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• What do you think now? Twelve flowers of different families, most of them wild, and only two inflorescences -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Much better, and I really like the arrangement of colors. The article still needs some examples of wind-pollinated flowers without petals—I'll hunt some up—but this makes a nice lead.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So nobody has noticed the last, somewhat crazy change to the lead image? Its been there for two months now. -- Solipsist (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Huzzah! Hohum has changed the lead image back again. A little slow, but perhaps Wikipedia isn't completely broken after all. -- Solipsist (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Development

I propose that the floral development section be moved further up the article. It doesn't make much sense why pollination and everything else is in sections before floral development. Since this is a big change I thought I'd see if the consensus was with me? Million_Moments (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Morphology section

I think a subsection explaining floral diagrams and their use should be added, see as an example : de:Blütendiagramm. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a flower diagram

The current diagram lacks marking for the pistil, which is a notable impediment to undertanding. ENeville (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Symbolism - Wordsworth's poem

I believe the title of the referenced poem by William Wordsworth is "Daffodils". The line "I wandered lonely as a cloud" is actually the first line of the poem. Reference: The New Oxford Book of English Verse (composed and edited by Helen Gardner) - Reprint of 1985. Page 506.

I know next to nothing about this poem, but the wiki page for the poem [2] suggests that the name is "I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud" and that it is erroneously referred to as "The Daffodils". It doesn't really expand or reference that though and there's some confusion about it on the talk page... Ribrob (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Meanings of flowers

I proposed the merge since the fork doesn't meet most of the WP:SPLIT criteria, and the article itself is in some need of tone cleanup that could better be accomplished here. Shadowjams (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. Meanings of flowers falls within the Symbolism section of flower, and adds little to what's already there. ENeville (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Labeling of Lillium longiflorum

I was just viewing the image of the flower, and that if the filament (4) of the stamen is labeled seperatly to the stamen(3) it gives the false impression that the filament is seperate to the stamen, where as the stamen is actually made up of the anther and the filament. So I would propose that (3) should be changed from stamen to anther. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregshallard (talk • contribs) 07:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Grammar - Correction Suggestion

This sentence...

"The grouping of flowers on a plant are called the inflorescence." 

in the first paragraph should read...

"The grouping of flowers on a plant is called the inflorescence."

Subject of sentence is grouping (singular), not flowers (plural); verb should agree with subject. (funny thing is that I can find no definitive answer to whether or not my intuition is correct on this... however the sentence as it currently appears makes me cringe... so does that count for anything?)

Flickr Addict (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As a self-appointed (is there any other kind?) member of the grammar police, I favor your version. But this case might not be a clear cut as all that. It might have to do with which side of the "pond" you happen to be on. I understand that while Americans would say, for example, "The company is ...," the British would say, "The company are ..." 140.147.236.194 (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

External Link

I would like to recommend http://www.flower.org.in for external link. It gives the users a wide collection of Indian flowers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksridher (talk • contribs) 02:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend http://www.flowerscraze.com www.youtube.com/markaplier to be considered for an external link. It has alot of good information on flowers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoaiblatif (talk • contribs) 13:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I Would like the website of www.Flowers.vg to be considered for an "External Link"

The website provides free flower pictures that users can use for projects & webpages

I feel the website will be useful for Wikipedia users

Eaglesnap 21:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The External Links section is usually reserved for links that will allow people to gain a further knowledge of the subject. A photo repository unfortunately doesn't fall in that category. Thanks for the mention, though! --NoahElhardt 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I Would like the website of http://rapina.no.sapo.pt/Flores/ to be considered for an "External Link"..it is a useful data.

The website provides flower pictures that users can use for projects & webpages.

Thanks.

The External Links section is usually reserved for links that will allow people to gain a further knowledge of the subject. A photo repository unfortunately doesn't fall in that category. Thanks for the mention, though! Latulla 20:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to recommend http://www.humanflowerproject.com be added as an external link pertaining to the 'Uses by Humans' section. The site is non-commercial and contains more than 1000 posts about the impact and uses of flowers in societies and cultures from around the world. It is well referenced with properly cited sources. Camillia 01:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

See also "External link www.flowers-pho tos.eu" in this page. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.104.0.169 (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

flowers usage

Original - Indian female hand putting flowers on a Lingam in a ghat in Varanasi, India

Someone should add that flowers are widely used as a gift to gods in India and Nepal. A good example is the picture. Yosarian (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In the same section, in the paragraph which discusses the edibility of flowers, I suspect conscious intent in the phrasing of the section in parentheses:

"Some edible flowers are sometimes candied such as daisy and rose (you may also come across a candied pansy)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.181.33 (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Karl jv, 6 July 2010

simon.laverack@astrazeneca.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.14.122 (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Add link to in the section about flowering?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowering_Locus_C

Karl jv (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. SpigotMap 14:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mithunkundu1983, 1 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} ==Gallery==

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Mithunkundu1983 (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome. Please read WP:COI and WP:IG. Even without the advertizing, the images would need to be captioned and add to the readers understanding of the subject of the article. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision

I have noticed that this page is sorely in need of revision and improvement. I have begun the process. There is much to improve on this page, including correcting arrantly incorrect information, improving writing, reorganizing subsections, removing repetitive bits and checking for consistency with other related pages. Any comments appreciated.Michaplot (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sepal misspelled as septal on Mature Flower Diagram

Hi, this has been mentioned on the file talk page [[3]], but sepal is misspelled as septal on the diagram of parts of the flower. Unfortunately I don't have any means to edit an SVG.Keepstherainoff (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Done.

I modified the description (by Inkscape) to sepal and uploaded that as a new version of the file.

Thank You Keepstherainoff, that you had brought the request here. It is definitely much more watched place than the page of the file. The correction itself was rather easy think to do. Reo ⁺ 18:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Poor Wording

There is poor wording in one of the image captions. "Bee orchid evolved to mimic a female bee to attract male bee pollinators" should be changed to "Bee orchid has evolved to mimic a female bee to attract male bee pollinators". It wasn't "designed". :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.186.214 (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, bees are Social insects, the males stay inside the hive, and the queen is the only one that can reproduce —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vennificus (talk • contribs) 00:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC) for proposing a girl the flower is given — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.197.60 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 January 2012

I want to add more information regarding floral formula.

Emeraldroza (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This template is for making specific requests to the page, if you want to edit it yourself you need to be Autoconfirmed or Confirmed--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Gardening Terminology

I know its probably not purely scientific, but I was surprised there was no definition of "annuals" and "perennials", which are common terms among people planting gardens. DonPMitchell (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I added links for perennial and biennial, but there's a bunch of other terminology that's much more obscure. Another article mentions "salverform" flowers, which are also mentioned here without explanation. I'm not sure of the best place to put definitions for these. Bennetto (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Depends... If in doubt, make entries in Glossary of botanical terms; then other folks cn expand them into articles if necessary. If OTOH, you have substantial material to publish, you can simply create new sections in Flower or new articles. JonRichfield (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Query

Anyone know what flower this is? Incorrectly named mostly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ValleyOfFlowers_MultistoryFlower.JPG Thanks. Écrivain (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Integration

Needs integrating/reconciling/with Plant reproductive morphology#Flowering plants, which maybe should be the 'Main article' since Flower is so overarching --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Status

Keeping in mind that this is a failed Featured Article candidate (2006), it should be brought up to at least Good Article status. See for instance the German and Spanish articles for guidance. In doing so it needs to be properly integrated with all the relevant subpages. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Two meanings of flower

A meadow with many flowers

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.69.140.138 (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Flower (and French FLEUR) have two meanings: the every-day use (tulip, roses, Aster amellus, ... , wildflower, flower farming) and the term used in botany. The cherry blossom (or apple blossom) has to do with it mostly in one sense, but not so much in the other. See the German word de:Blume

Google translates: A flower (Blume) referred to in everyday speech either a decorative flower, (an inflorescence incl. part of the branch axis of mostly herbaceous plants) or a decorative flowering pot or garden plant. She (It, the flower) often serves as decoration, for example as a cut flower in a bouquet, as floral wreath or flower arrangement. In the visual arts flowers are often depicted as a theme floral motif.

(...) and de:Blüte.

• See also Cut flowers.

--129.69.140.138 (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That could have been a bit clearer. Flower can be either a verb or a known, the noun being the product of the verb. The verb sense can be narrowly applied to mean the act of producing flowers, and it can also be applied more broadly to the act of maturing. The noun, on the other hand, can have the specific meaning of a part of a plant that contains the reproductive organs or more broadly to plants that produce attractive flowers and are cultivated for that purpose. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 19:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. And the verb (to be in flower or in bloom or TO BLOOM, TO FLOWER) leads in German ("blühen") to the noun "Blüte" (bloom, blossom, flower) as 'a part of a plant that ...' or the simple fact of what happens (in European climate zone) in spring. --129.69.140.138 (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I probably should have said "are often cultivated ..." because a wild flower is not necessarily cultivated but it is still valued for its attractive flowers (blossoms) and that is why we refer to the entire plant as a lower. So the point that "flower" can refer to the entire plant is a good one. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 15:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2015

Flowers are very pretty. And they smell good

Hollybrazzell (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  14:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect link

1.1.2: "carpel" is incorrectly linked to Carpelan. 161.130.179.63 (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The aforementioned error still stands. As carpel is a redirect to gynoecium, which is already linked just above, please change [[Carpelan|carpel]] to simply carpel. 161.130.179.63 (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Done linked to Gynoecium#Carpels Cannolis (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Flower And its Different Sizes

Flowers have many different shapes and sizes, and there are many variations in colour, number of flower parts and the arrangements of these parts. Flowers are the reproductive parts of plants which are responsible for the production of gametes (sex cells). After fusion of the male and female gametes a zygote is produced which develops into an embryo within the seed. This seed gives rise to a new flowering plant of the same kind.

Generally, a flower consists of four whorls, which are a ring of leaves, viz.

the calyx on the outside

the corolla lying inside the calyx

the stamens enclosed by the corolla, and

the pistil in the center of the flower they smell gooo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.78.76.51 (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2017

link to flower article in wikipedia <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower<ref>2001:8003:8027:4D00:ECF6:A45E:875D:28D8 (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC) 2001:8003:8027:4D00:ECF6:A45E:875D:28D8 (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - we don't use cyclical links, linking back to the article including the link - Arjayay (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flower. 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/20150410034557/http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/allergicdiseases/understanding/pollenallergy/Pages/about.aspx to https://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/allergicdiseases/understanding/pollenallergy/Pages/about.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413144808/http://masslung.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/pollenallergies.pdf to http://masslung.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/pollenallergies.pdf

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) 15:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flower. 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/20140826120024/https://www.thebouqs.com/blog/9-thoughts-people-really-think-when-receiving-flowers-2/ to https://www.thebouqs.com/blog/9-thoughts-people-really-think-when-receiving-flowers-2/

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) 13:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC) flowers are very beautiful — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikmali (talk • contribs) 05:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Sunflower edible?

The sunflower is listed among nasturtium and other flowers as being edible. Nasturtium flowers indeed are edible as a whole (they taste sweet), but in contrast, from the sunflower you can surely only eat the seeds? So the text should be slightly amended as "... and the seeds of the sunflower". 86.170.122.219 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2018

41.233.44.169 (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 15:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2018

Seobouqs (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Please replace this reference link for The Bouqs Company: https://www.thebouqs.com/blog/9-thoughts-people-really-think-when-receiving-flowers-2/ with this link: https://bouqs.com/blog/9-thoughts-people-really-think-when-receiving-flowers-2/ we have moved URLs but would love if this could go to our article versus the web archive.

 Not done: I have removed the link altogether - it is not a reliable source per Wikipedia's guidelines at WP:RS. Please also note that any kind of SEO or other promotional activities are prohibited on Wikipedia (see WP:COI and WP:PROMO). Thank you for your consideration. GermanJoe (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, @Seobouqs: did Wikipedia a favor. Neither version was anywhere near the best available. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It might be helpful to add a seed page in reference in this page.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2019

Ther Summer Flowers Rose is also known as Dublin Bay, Impatient, Gul, Gulbahar, Hravart, Roosevelt, Vartan, Arrosa, Aygul, Oklahoma Hulthemia, Hesperrhodos, Platyrhodon, Banksianae, Carolinae, Pimpinellifoliae, Rosa, Laevigatae and Gymnocarpae. These flowers come in white, pink, maroon, red, yellow and orange. Roses are known to be beautiful flowers, but hips, the fruit of roses, are a good source of vitamin C, the rose petals can be used to help dry and patchy skin and rose herbal tea is said to treat cold and coughs.

Hibiscus is the signature flower of subtropical regions. This flower needs a lot of sunlight and room to grow.

Sunflowers are bright yellow and can survive extreme phases of heat. They prefer not to be overwatered.

Different Types of Lilies There are a variety of lilies in India, including the pineapple lily and the gloriosa lily. Lilies can withstand very extreme weather conditions. In the winter, lily plants and leaves will wither, but don't get rid of this plant. The bulb remains dormant throughout the winter but will bloom again the following season. They're very low maintenance flowers that look great in a garden or one's home.

The pineapple lily isn't really a flower you'd see growing in a garden. This lily is actually a member of the asparagus family, not the pineapple family. You can use this flower as a centerpiece or in a flower bed.

The gloriosa lily is a climber plant, so it looks beautiful draped over poles in a yard. Be careful with this lily though. It's very poisonous and shouldn't be consumed. Deepika Khanolkar (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 17:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

"Incomplete flower" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Incomplete flower. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2020

Flower , the characteristic reproductive structure of angiosperms.As popularly used, the term "flower" especially applies when part or fall of the reproductive structure is distinctive in color and form. 223.238.105.215 (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a wonderfully written article and very informative. It has been informative for my class as I am learning about flowers in my class. Jlwatts98 (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2021

if you don't water the flower/plant it might die or not bloom. if it needs sunlight give it the sunlight it needs. keeping your flower or plant alive can be very hard but the flower is wonderful after it blooms. Seawing4 (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

Oh my lord the vandalism.CycoMa (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Maybe ask for some page protection at WP:RFPP? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Biology reproduction in plants class 7

Dittection 122.163.27.156 (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

"Flowering herbs" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Flowering herbs and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 4#Flowering herbs until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)