Talk:Pelargonium graveolens
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
English google??? If not, can it make searchable??? --124.78.209.238 (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
A topic of .....
[edit]Stanhopea graveolens has been added based on the following http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Stanhopea+graveolens&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&btnG=Search --124.78.215.100 (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
More cultivars of the plant....
[edit]http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=5535182&q=&uid=787286973&setcookie=yes --124.78.215.100 (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Verification is needed for the info of.....
[edit]as there is no such citation available at
http://www.jeoronline.com/archive?issue_year=1998 --222.64.219.35 (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
so is this http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+Citronellol+Pelargonium+graveolens&btnG=Search --222.64.219.35 (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Everybody wants that his or her skin to be free from scars?
[edit]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelargonium_graveolens#Uses
"•Cicatrisant: Everybody wants that his or her skin to be free from scars..."
I just came across this, finding it overly generalized. I'm proud of every "battle"scar I have. Would never dream of ridding them. The whole "textbit" under the uses-paragraph feels like some advertizement.
Sorry, but I myself don't feel that I could edit it right since English isn't my first language, but third after finnish and swedish. I'm kindly asking anybody with the skills, to make that paragraph more "encyclopedic".
I'm sorry if I did something wrong; I've never posted anything here before! -Paul 86.50.67.69 (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Methylhexanamine
[edit]I boldly removed the toxicology section. The only claim from a source of any merit I've been able to find is a minor Chinese study on geranium oil. Multiple official sources have contradicted this claim ([1] etc), and my suspicion is that the only reason this claim is still around is to increase the appeal of Methylhexanamine as a dietary supplement by claiming that it's a naturally sourced substance. If there are any issues, let me know! :) --Akhonji (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
species saddled with general remark about genus
[edit]This sentence is absolutely correct: "It is often called a geranium, as it falls within the plant family Geraniaceae, although more correctly, it is referred to as a pelargonium." But I don't think it should be included in this article about one specific species of pelargonium. If we start like this, it would have to be included in every single article about any species of pelargonium. Therefore, this fact should be removed from this article and instead included in the articles on the genus pelargonium and the genus geranium (which I am sure it already is).
Alternatively, the remark could be embedded in context by either refering by name to the so-called "Geranium Oil" in the introduction, or by moving the remark about the species-name-confusion to the part of the article that talks about the "Geranium Oil". Otto von B. (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
In Subgenus Pelargonium along with list
[edit]I added P. quercifolium because I happened to stumble across the quercifolium page. Now after reading the Pelargonium genus page and seeing that there are 167 species in the Pelargonium subgenus, I'm not sure what the policy is about picking only some of the 167. LarryLACa (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)