 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Citrullus colocynthis appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 June 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | The contents of the Alhandal page were merged into Citrullus colocynthis on 2022 10 May. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Untitled
editIt originally bore the scientific name Colocynthis citrullus, but is now classified as Citrullus colocynthis.
This is wrong, according to e.g. [1]:
Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai var. lanatus [=Colocynthis citrullus L.] is the cultivated watermelon, and can have Egusi phenotype. On the other hand, Citrullus colocynthis Schrad. is a different Citrullus species (commonly called colocynth)(...)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.153.165.48 (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Ambiguous link
editShould confectio hamech be changed to catholicon (electuary)? It points to a disambig page which leads to the latter. I think that catholicons include the confectio hamech, but I could be wrong. Also, I suppose the worms linked to are of the intestinal parasite variety? -- Mithent 02:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
editThis article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Relevant
editI cannot see the relevance of a Bible reference in this section. It might be better moved to a more appropriate section, or, I feel, covered in a different article which deals with Bible scripture instead. I'm not quite so bold so as to plain remove the sentence, and so I leave the tag instead. 130.225.244.179 (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- It seems entirely relevant to me, given that the topic of the article is specifically referred toin the texts of several religions.Mccapra (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)