Talk:Saffron/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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.

Contents

Hydroponics

I am requesting futher exploration or information on the growing of saffron, specifically involving hydroponics, but also the regular methods. Im looking for data like, timelines, soil PH, Nutrient specifics, harvesting, etc.

Hydroponics is already being used to grow saffron in Spain. And this probably more realistic for the future of growing saffron.

Hydroponics "Some saffron in Spain is now being grown using hydroponics, this realistically may be the future of the spice. In this way we can better control the nutrients and the atmospheric conditions which any plant is subjected to, thereby controlling the ultimate quality of spice, in a consistent way."

Style

Just some random style tips, for future reference:

  • It is not necessary to italicize the abbreviations "i.e." and "e.g." for the same reason that we don't italicize "a.m." or "c." or "p.s.": though they're abbreviations of foreign words, the abbreviations themselves have become common enough in English that it is no longer necessary to do foreign-word-borrowings italics for 'em. Also, unlike "e.g.", you don't need a comma after "i.e." (even though you need a comma after the English equivalent, "that is").
O.K. The article obeys this rule now. Saravask 04:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In general, avoid using parentheses when you can just as easily convey the same information without them—especially in an article that uses Harvard referencing. For example:
  • instead of "Since some 150,000 crocus flowers are needed to produce just one kg of dry saffron (some forty hours of intense labor), harvesting is often a frenetic affair.", one might possibly consider "Since some 150,000 crocus flowers are needed to produce just one kg of dry saffron—some forty hours of intense labor—harvesting is often a frenetic affair."
  • instead of "C. sativus itself is a cultivar differentiated by a natural chromosomal mutation, a sterile triploid variant of an eastern Mediterranean autumn-flowering crocus, C. cartwrightianus, that may have originated in Crete (botanical research has discounted the widely held notion of saffron's origin in Central Asia).", one might consider "C. sativus itself is a cultivar differentiated by a natural chromosomal mutation, a sterile triploid variant of an eastern Mediterranean autumn-flowering crocus, C. cartwrightianus, that may have originated in Crete; botanical research has discounted the widely held notion of saffron's origin in Central Asia."
  • instead of "Saffron spice, generally highly regarded by cooks for its pleasantly spicy and slightly metallic fragrance, contains a dye (crocine) that colors food a distinctive deep golden color.", one might consider "Saffron spice, generally highly regarded by cooks for its pleasantly spicy and slightly metallic fragrance, contains a dye, crocine, that colors food a distinctive deep golden color."
  • Does "varieties" really belong at the top of the article? Isn't it more important to get the basics of the plant (i.e. the biology and history, at the least) out of the way before going into the specific kinds? In addition to seeming slightly trivial by comparison, that section also seems to be a bit dwarfish; I can't say how comprehensive it is because I'm ignorant on the topic, but are those two types of saffron really the only two worth at all mentioning? I don't feel like the section gives me a broad enough view of the different varieties, perhaps because it comes before the article tells of many of the important aspects of the saffron spice and plant in detail.
You're right. It doesn't. I'll move it down now. I only put it up there because that is what was done in Black pepper. There are so few food-related featured articles to model this on ... Saravask 20:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That perennial problem of word choice returns here. I'll try to help make the article less technical-sounding and more accessible where possible; when there are two synonyms, always choose the simpler one. (e.g., "Saffron is also believed to be effective in treating stomach ailments." or even better "Saffron is also believed to be useful for treating stomach ailments", not "Saffron is also suspected of being efficacious in treating stomach ailments.") -Silence 03:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I am doing a final copyedit now. I am following your suggestions. Thanks. Saravask 22:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ovid quotation...

...needs to credit the translator. Doops | talk 08:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved the footnote down to follow the quote. Saravask 16:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistency

I'm working my way through for my FAC vote (almost surely I'll end up supporting eventually) and ran across this, that I couldn't fix myself without research:

"Crocin itself is an oil-soluble pigment flanked by two water-soluble sugar molecules. This makes the whole assemblage ideal for coloring water-based (non-fatty) foods such as rice dishes"

... A couple paras later ...

"The glycoside crocin is water-soluble, and so it does not as readily contribute its yellow coloring to oily substances — it thus is ideal for coloring water-based foods such as rice."

So is crocin oil- or water- soluble? Probably should eliminate the duplicated discussion of "ideal for water-based foods such as rice" as well. And, find a better term than "ideal" - it may be better at coloring water than oil, but it's not "ideal" surely. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Some quick Googling tells me that the oil-soluble part is crocetin, which is a carotenoid, and crocin is its di-gentiobiose ester. Gentiobiose is 6-O-beta-D-Glucopyranosyl-D-glucopyranose, a disaccharide. It has been found by itself (not as a glycoside) in tomato, and I presume also gentian (because of its name). Its molecular structure is at http://www.cem.msu.edu/~reusch/VirtualText/carbhyd.htm; I didn't find a structure for crocetin in my quick search.
So in answer to the question, crocin is water-soluble. (If it were hydrolyzed, the resulting crocetin would be oil-soluble.)--Curtis Clark 23:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Just as an explanation to Bunchesofgrapes: the crocetin that is sandwiched between the esterified gentiobioses is, because its main chain is so long and symmetrical (16 carbons) makes it hydrophobic and relatively non-polar (despite the acid groups, which make a minor contribution in this context). Esterification of crocetin with the gentiobioses now adds significant hydrophilic character to the molecule. This now allows the dye element (crocetin — which by itself is only oil-soluble and is excluded from water) to interact freely with water. You can think of the esterified gentiobioses as so-called "phase-transition catalysts" that are used in organic chemistry experiments to transfer compounds from one native phase to another which that molecule would normally be excluded from, due to entropic concerns. Saravask 01:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Yet, oddly enough, I don't remember coming across either gentiobiose or crocetin (or any carotenoids) in two years of organic chemistry classes ... Saravask 01:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
They tend to leave out plant secondary compounds, except the most common (e.g., caffeine)--Curtis Clark 01:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I've rewritten the section outlining saffron alpha-crocin for consistency and flow. Saravask 03:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Etymology

The article states "Safranum is also the root of the Italian zafferano and Spanish azafrán," but I suspect that the Spanish was direct from Arabic, which with the definite article would be as za'faran. Spanish has a number of other direct borrowings from Arabic that also include the definite article: algodón and azúcar come immediately to mind.

The other possibility is that the Spanish added the Arabic article to the Latin word, but considering how much trouble they underwent to expel the Moors from Iberia, that seems unlikely. Because the statement is referenced, I won't change it.--Curtis Clark 00:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I see now what you mean. I removed the claim that the Latin term is the root of the Spanish term. It was not in the source. This wording thing can get very tricky. Thanks. Saravask 01:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Another internal consistency Question

"The history of saffron cultivation reaches back more than 3,000 years."

...

"Written records show that saffron has been used medicinally in the treatment of 90 illnesses for over four millennia from the Mediterranean to the lands of Babylon and Sumeria. "

I realize that "over four millennia" technically is "more than 3,000 years", but you know what I mean... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

While I'm whining -- sorry -- as I closely read the article, it feels like every other sentence begins "yet" or "however" or "indeed" or "thus. I'm copyediting and ridding it of some of that, which I think improves it in general by using fewer words to express the same meaning. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Good catch. I got the first fact from Deo (2003). The second fact, however, was there before I began my edits. Feel free to remove it — I can't find anything about "90 illnesses" and "four millennia" in Willard or anywhere else. I agree with you about my overloaded attempts at transition and flow. Saravask 05:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
OK. Don't hesitate to let me know if any of my copyediting seems too zealous. In general I think you've built up a brilliant structure and research base, but have "too many words" here and there. (I'm also happy to see how well the FAC is going - see, I told you food was easier than politics, and you didn't believe it! ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Oddly enough, I just found sources that contain info pertaining to the (just deleted) second statement:[1][2]. Saravask 16:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Here is where the "Written records ..." statement was added — by User:Peak. Saravask 16:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


"A 15 cm depth planting gives optimal saffron thread yields in Italy, a major producing country. Meanwhile, Italian flower and corm harvests are optimized when mother corms are planted 2–3 cm apart and are planted 8–10 cm deep in their furrows."

Is this saying that in italy, you'll get the best threads at 15 cm, but more flowers and corms at 10 cm? It's a bit confusing. Maybe this is more detail than is called for? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. All this comes out of Deo 2003. I know it sounds contradictory at first. But one depth is reported by Deo to give optimal saffron thread yields while the second gives optimal corm and flower yields. Corm yield determines how many plants growers can rely upon in the next season, while saffron yields determine grower's income for that same year. These are two different things, and presumably have different optimal depths. I think it should stay in so that readers may get some understanding of some example planting specifics used by certain growers. Saravask 20:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Yup. Makes sense once explained. PS I like the new lead picture, good choice. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Funny, I was just about to make a new section on this Talk page to discuss how much less eye-catching, interesting, and pretty the new lead image is, and how I'm disappointed that it was replaced in this edit by a much plainer image that is, photographically speaking, of much lower quality (poorly-framed, less color contrast than the other images, the flower sticks straight out at you rather than being at an angle so you can't see it projecting outwards, not well-focused), and moved the much more interesting image that was there before to the very bottom of the page, hiding it in the "notes" section of all places! My only question is: why? -Silence 21:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I liked being able to see the whole plant, and I like the composition and narrow focal depth of the one on top now. Just my gut feel, nothing I'd ever fight for. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that the lead should ideally be a whole-plant shot. I also changed the image because it was very, very dim (this was commented upon by User:Postdlf: "The lead image is a bit dim, however; please yell at me if I forget to do some Photoshop correction to it after I get home this evening"). But since Bunchofgrapes is not so adamant as Silence is on this issue, I put back a color- and gamma-corrected version of the old lead. I hope this satisfies everyone. Saravask 22:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

dab link needed?

I have been wondering: do we need the disambiguation link at the page's top? I'm not sure if the other uses of "saffron" are similar enough to cause people confusion. Should it be removed? Saravask 18:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Lead image size

The image had been at 240px for several weeks. I tried enlarging it to 300px. Bunchofgrapes rightly reduced the image size. However, I think that the image need to be at least 240-250px in size so that we have good detail and resolution. As a compromise, I've slightly enlarged the lead to 250px (it was 300px before). We need better resolution than what 200px gives. Let me know if there are problems with this. Saravask 22:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Perfectly fine. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I just reduced the image size further, to 240px (what it was before). Saravask 23:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

A source for medieval Scottish use of saffron

I've seen it other places, too, but the following is a quote from a contemporary in John Major’s History of Greater Britain published in 1521. He writes about the “Wild Scots”:

"From the middle of the thigh to the foot they have no covering for the leg, clothing themselves with a mantle instead of an upper garment and a shirt dyed with saffron."

--Fire Star 06:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if the dye isn't safflower instead. I would imagine that saffron would be outrageously expensive to import to the Highlands, and difficult to store because of the humidity. Safflower has been commonly used as a dye for many centuries.--Curtis Clark 16:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I have seen reports that Henry VIII of England sought to outlaw the practise of his Gaelic subjects (espe. the newly conquered Irish) dying their clothing with imported Spanish saffron, as it was considered a substantial drain on his balance of trade and tax base. --Fire Star 17:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Here is a site with a nice essay (with quotes and notes) where it is discussed: [3] --Fire Star 04:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The passages from Henry sound more like sumptuary laws than balance-of-trade, since the quantity of cloth in an item of clothing was also controlled.--Curtis Clark 06:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Notes section as a gallery?

The Notes section has a lot of white space on the right, and the article contains some excellent images that occasionally get in the way. We may as well use the Notes section as a vertical gallery of excess images, right? Melchoir 10:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No. -Silence 11:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Why not? Melchoir 19:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
There's plenty of room for all the images currently used on this page and more. The only reason it looks like there's no room is because of poor layout choices and a heck of a lot of redundancy (i.e. countless images of the same subject matter used for decorative purpose, which I don't mind at all, and several images which are actually the exact same picture cropped in different ways, which I do mind quite a bit). Wikipedia does have "gallery" pages except in very unusual situations; that's exactly what Wikimedia Commons is for. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and an atlas, not a miscellaneous image repository. Plus a little white spaces in articles isn't such a bad thing; noone will perish if not every lengthy TOC is floated or every lengthy Notes or References list made beautiful with images and charts and other fancy tricks. While I don't object to interesting layout experiments, it's generally true that simple is best. -Silence 21:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Er ... there's only one image in the article that is a cropped version of another; all the other images are otherwise completely distinct and taken from different sources. This includes the fresco images. Even the detail of the saffron harvester was an image taken under different lighting conditions than the yellow-colored "Saffron Gatherers" fresco. The Goddess image is (although it appears similar) is from a completely different fresco altogether. Those four images indeed come from three different frescos from three different sites. Saravask 21:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I put a nice fresh image of a flower in the notes section — it should make the reading of footnotes a more pleasurable task. Saravask 23:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm aware that the two "Saffron Gatherers" fresco images are under different lighting, but they're still the exact same fresco. If this was an article about the fresco, two such images would certainly be warranted; but this is not an article about the fresco, it's an article about the plant, and we can't devote so much time to a single fresco for such a general article. Besides which, if you're worried that removing any of the excessive number of images in the Greco-Roman section will remove some valuable information conveyed in their captions, then the real problem seems to be that you're either not putting needed information in the actual article text, or you're repeating far too much information in image captions that's already available in the prose paragraphs! Image captions should be as short as possible, conveying only the most necessary and immediate facts about the image; descriptions and overall significance should be left to the actual article text, to avoid redundancies. -Silence 01:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, let me explain my reasoning, now that I've thought about it a bit more: I have no problem with a little white space, especially if it helps rest the reader's eye. But the notes section is long, and in this electronic format it doesn't display on the same window as the article content, so the resting function isn't important. In fact, if we're aiming for simplicity, a space for worthy pictures apart from the main content helps simplify that main content.

On the other hand, if we add another function to the Notes sections, here and elsewhere, I think it might encourage editors to use more notes! This would be a Good Thing.

As for whether it's necessary to absorb any excess images in this article, I would rather not judge. I simply don't think it could be harmful. Melchoir 01:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, that seems reasonable. We might also consider other solutions to the lengthy notes section: since the entire section is pretty much of a uniform length, why not compress it into a two-row section? Possibly even a three-row one. -Silence 01:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I've tried doing this several times, but it does not work. The automated numbering restarts from one upon the start of each new column; this screws up the number match between footnotes and inline cites. Saravask 01:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Misidentified pic

Removed this pic Image:Saffron Crocus sativus two flowers.jpg which doesn't appear to be Crocus sativus (note short stigmas) - MPF 14:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I reinserted it before seeing this comment. I just removed it. Thanks. Saravask 20:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

BC/AD vs. BCE/CE

I will be using BCE/CE notation in this article. There is nothing that is POV or "anti-Christian" (see a message left by a BC/AD proponent on my talk page for these remarks) about such usage. BCE/CE notation is used by the National Geographic Society, the Smithsonian Institution, the College Board, and by numerous style guides and scholarly journals (such as the American Journal of Philology). Consult Common Era for evidence of this. Much like the metric system, BCE/CE is increasingly growing into common acceptance as a more religiously neutralan NPOV alternative, and I have found no paucity of its usage in my reading. On the other hand, I and many others find anno Domini (from the Latin: "in the year of [our] Lord") to be exceedingly insulting to Hindus, atheists, and others. BC/AD thus needlessly antagonizes a large portion of Wikipedia readers. But I'd like to hear what others have to say, especially from BC/AD advocates. Saravask 20:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV, eg? How is "year zero" set for the BCE/CE system? Is it less POV than the Julian calendar, ab urbe condita, the Chinese calendar, the Jewish calendar, the Muslim calendar, the Mayan calendar ... -- ALoan (Talk) 19:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Eeesh. I don't know about year zero. Maybe someone else can answer that one. But my main issue was with the term "Anno Domini" in "AD". It namedrops one religious figure while excluding all others. Saravask 19:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • From Common Era: "As with anno Domini, the year zero zero is not used, except for astronomical uses. So 1 CE is immediately preceded by 1 BCE". Saravask 19:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, as Common Era says, "The Common Era (CE), also known as the Christian Era and sometimes the Current Era, is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1 until the present. The term is used for a system of reckoning years that is chronologically equivalent to the anno Domini (AD) (Latin for "in the year of [our] Lord") system, but with less overt religious implications." (emphasis added) Clearly covert religious implications are better than overt religious implications... -- ALoan (Talk) 19:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • OK. I will convert it to BC/AD. Saravask 19:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, no need - I was simply ponting out that CE/BCE is just as POV, but a bit less obviously so. But we have to a common calendar, otherwise noone would know when 1066 or 2005 was. (You should see the edit war over at Anno Domini / Talk:Anno Domini. It is all rather depressing.) -- ALoan (Talk) 20:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
It's too late. I already converted it. It's not that big a deal for me, and everyone is so far objecting to CE/BCE. Meanwhile, no one objected to AD/BC except me. So I guess since CE/BCE is also less well-known (as User:Silence pointed out), I will leave the AD/BC in. I won't bring up the issue again, and it should stay like this. Saravask 20:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Image positioning

I see people are taking issue with my image placement. I tried to accomodate, but I have two requests:

  1. Images placement must strictly alternate from left to right. This gives a more pleasing and balanced feel to the page.
    Since they are illustrations, I think they would be better all on the right, as this makes it easier to read the text. mfc
  2. Images must not be duplicated (someone ended up duplicating the Knossos fresco image) and must be placed in the appropriate sections. Someone tried moving the saffron threads image to the "Cultivation" section while moving the whole-plant image that was there to the "Varieties" section. This is bizarre, since that section deals with spice thread varieties, not cultivar varieties. Saravask 21:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
But I don't want to appear obstinate. I can always be convinced to change my mind ... Saravask 21:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
"Images must not be duplicated" Oops, sorry. "Copy" != "cut"--Curtis Clark 00:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I feel that strictly alternating between left and right is a little too mechanical. I wouldn't want to put three in a row on one side, but two in a row now and then might break up the monotony.

By the way, in the "Chemistry" section, shouldn't the diagrams be on the same side as each other, and the tables on the same side as each other? Melchoir 01:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Changes

I will make the following changes:

  1. Return Image:Crocus sativus1.jpg to "Cultivation" — this is the most germane topic for this image to be under, as it is a whole-plant shot.
  2. Return all fresco images, as each conveys unique information that readers need. They also each provide a valuable illustraton of what is discussed in the "Greco-Roman" text.
  3. I will not return the cropped image Image:Saffron stigmas crocus sativa corrected cropped.jpg to the "Varieties" section. Instead, I will put an image of saffron threads there instead.
  4. I will put Image:Saffron stigmas crocus sativa corrected cropped.jpg in the "Notes" section instead.

But I like the other changes made, such as bolding "saffron crocus", etc. I like the attention this article is getting from numerous great editors. If anyone has problems with the changes I will make, please raise the issue here first. Saravask 23:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Disagree with your first point. The ideal image is Image:Crocus sativus saffron Anna Tatti stockxchng.jpg; showing the whole plant is not necessary for "Cultivation" (it's necessary for "Biology"), and showing a single plant is less germane than a group. I'd also say that showing the soil is more resonant than showing a third full-body image of the plant in a row, which verges on being completely redundant immediately following the two similar images above it. Additionally, the other image provides a much-needed horizontal box for the opening sections: every other image and table is an intimidatingly lengthy vertical rectangle. A horizontal one is aesthetically very superior. Also, you haven't put the Image:Crocus sativus saffron Anna Tatti stockxchng.jpg anywhere else in the article (you just removed it; it's not on the page right now), so presumably you don't have any great alternative places for it to go.
OK. Image:Crocus sativus saffron Anna Tatti stockxchng.jpg is now in the "Cultivation" section.
Disagree with your second point. The first fresco image is illegible and totally redundant to the much better-looking close-up shot, and the image of the god doesn't even seem related to this article's topic, since the image crops out any possible actual images of the saffron or its harvesting, instead just showing some arbitrary deity. The Greco-Roman article is already a bit bloated; having so many redundant images not only makes the article much more crowded and long than it should be, but also has the very unfortunate result of forcing some really significant, different images (i.e. the first one, with the blue dude) to be reduced to such a small size that they're completely useless. If you really think the god image is vital, then keep it, but certainly scrap one of the two duplicate "saffron gatherer fresco" images so there's enough room to enlarge the first image in the History section to a saner size.
I reduced the size of Image:Saffron gatherersSantorini.jpg, and increased the sizes of Image:Saffron gatherers detail Thera Santorini.gif and Image:Man gathering saffron Knossos Crete crocus sativus fresco.jpg. But I think they all still belong. They are all in symbiosis with the text, and give different views into ancient cultivation and usage of saffron. I don't think it is too much specialization. Saravask 01:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Agree with your third point. Very good.
Thank you. Saravask 01:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Disagree with your fourth point. Don't see why this image is useful to this article, especially when it's not actually illustrating any text, but is just there to decorate the Notes section. Also, having four or five images in the Notes section is better than having just one, in a way, since it shows that it's an organized effort to provide a gallery, not just a last-minute toss-in. However, this is a very minor point, so if you think the close-up is important even though we have the uncropped image in the article too, keep it. -Silence 01:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I added another image to the "Notes" section to show that it is an organized gallery. I tried collimating the footnotes, but it doesn't work. The numbering gets screwed up while the internal links joining inline cites w/ footnotes becomes confusing to discern. Saravask 01:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Methinks it's all looking good now! Couple of changes I'll want to make, the header Varieties should really be Cultivars; in botany, a variety is a particular grade of variation found in wild plants, the correct term in cultivated plants (as here) is cultivar; the word "variety" is very commonly used to apply to cultivars in popular speech, but I think in an encyclopedia we should follow the stricter definitions. Also cultivars use 'Single' quotes, not "Double" (e.g. Crocus sativus 'Cashmirianus').

I also have reservations about the identity of a couple of the pics, the two labelled "still life" are distinct from the others in having broader petals with a yellowish base and multiply-divided stigmas; all the other pics have petals with a narrow, purple base and unforked stigmas. This could just be variation between different saffron cultivars, but I do wonder if they too may be wrongly labelled (or maybe these two are correct and the others are wrong .... !). Unfortunately I'm not sufficiently familiar with the species to know for certain. - MPF 02:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't know these things so much — I'm really a fungal genetics person, not a botany specialist. I made the changes you suggested. Thanks. Saravask 03:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I know the "still life" pictures (which both are versions of Image:Safrron stigmas crocus sativa.JPG) look a bit different. However, that image was the only image that was on this page before I started editing this page, and was uploaded to the Commons by User:Velela with the caption "Crocus sativa flowers showing stigmas which can be harvested as Saffron". All the other images you see now (except the botanical illustration) were found and uploaded by me. I would tend to think that Velela knew what he/she was taking a picture of, but you could always ask. Other than that, I cannot say. Saravask 03:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Justification is not justified

Typographers know that text justification is one of the hardest things to get right, and programs such as Adobe InDesign go to a lot of trouble to automate as much of it as possible. And justified text absolutely relies on appropriate hyphenation.

Thus, justification is totally out of place on web pages: There is no hyphenation, and because the text reflows with different viewport widths, it is impossible to optimize. There is absolutely nothing wrong with right-ragged in web pages.--Curtis Clark 03:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh gosh - that looks just plain wrong... -- ALoan (Talk) 03:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
It's gone. Saravask 05:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


Article split

This is a long article at 81 kb. I'm pondering whether to split this article up by creating a daughter named "History of saffron". I'd then move all history-related content there, then heavily summarize that "History" section here by leaving two or three paragraphs. Saravask 21:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You could almost split out "Usage" as a third article. But history is a good candidate to separate first. In terms of Featured Article, though, which part do you think would be the best candidate?--Curtis Clark 21:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
History. I'm going to hold off until the FAC is over, however. Saravask 21:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Safranbolu

Also Safranbolu can be added in one of the articles. It's a city in Turkey. Its name came from Saffron (Safranbolu), the city is an important place in history (not too much nowadays) for saffron growing.--Ugur Basak 21:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to mention it in History of saffron. Saravask 21:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/f/Talk%7ESaffron_Archive01_693b.html"