Jump to content

Talk:Apple/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ntdb.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"the relationship between both words is uncertain."

The relationship between the English word and the PIE etymon is perfectly clear, one is derived from the other. This sounds like some crackpot attempt to cast doubt on an uncontroversial etymology and should simply be removed, IMO.--178.249.169.67 (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

"Apfelbäume" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Apfelbäume and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 8#Apfelbäume until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Writing Apple sell iPhones, linking accidentally to the fruit, is an easy error which many editors must make, but I don't see any articles with such bad links. If the editor(s) who monitor and fix these would like to step forward, WikiProject Bluelink patrol may be able to learn from your techniques and perhaps share some of our experience with you. Certes (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 10 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - WP:SNOW close. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


– Per WP:PTOPIC. Apple Inc. had roughly 4 times more views than Apple (655,878 vs 177,932) in the last 60 days. Terrabalt (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Long-term significance applies here. 180.254.173.193 (talk) 08:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I believe that this page should be moved. There are a lot more things called Apple than just the fruit. Madison Elizabeth Michelle (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

That is correct, there are a lot more things called Apple than just the fruit. That's why there's a disambiguation link at the very top, before the article even begins. The fruit is obviously the source and predecessor of all other uses of the term, therefore it should be the direct link. This is discussed above. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Being the source and predecessor isn't conclusive: Boston, Massachusetts gets the base name despite being named for Boston, Lincolnshire. The relevant fact is that the fruit is a primary topic. It's certainly primary by long-term significance. Whether it's also primary by usage is less clear, but the discussion above decided not to move. Certes (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I now know about Boston, Lincolnshire. Thank you! I think I will fall back on a completely specious argument: Each year, more Apples the fruit are sold than all Apple Inc.'s products combined since it started back in the 1980's. (List of countries by apple production -> 83,139,326 metric tons/year 2017 -> 183,290,838,865 pounds/year -> approx three apples per pound -> 549,872,516,595 Apples/year) Check and Mate. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Request for further detail

i propose a clarification for the sake of interest, that we additionally detail, specifically, that approximately 570 billion apples were produced in 2018. This provides a better grasp of quantity. (I got this number taking .33 pounds as the average apple weight, as sources detail) 174.251.65.118 (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Mouseover image is unhelpful

When mousing over a link to this page, I see the second image in the sidebar, the apple flower, instead of the picture above it of an apple. I don't know how to change this, but I feel the article picture should be of the object people are familiar with as an apple. Albert Newton1 (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Request new additions

In the cultivars section can we please the Australian cultivar’s of the Pink Lady apple & the Bravo apple. Both cultivated/ bred in Australia along with the Granny Smith apple.

cheers.

links / references material.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/programs/landline/2023-06-04/bravo-apples:-australias-new-apple/102438782

&

The women behind our 

(Australians) famous apples.

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/the-women-behind-our-famous-apples/101908816


Purple Bravo apples, the 'Louis Vuitton' of the industry, bound for international stage.

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/102297262 49.185.205.152 (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

apple=malum, James Geary

The sentence

The origin of the popular identification with a fruit unknown in the Middle East in biblical times is found in wordplay with the Latin words mālum (an apple) and mălum (an evil), each of which is normally written malum.

has two references, one of them is Wit's End: What Wit Is, How It Works, and Why We Need It[1] by James Geary.

I have removed this reference, as it seems clear to me that this author is not a serious linguist. In the same book, just one page later, he claims that the Hebrew name of Eve ("Havvah" = חַוָּה = chet-vav-heh) is derived from "ahavvah" (he means ahavah, אַהֲבָה = aleph-heh-vet-heh, with the root aleph-heh-vet), apparently because chet and heh are often transcribed with the same latin letter h, similarly for vav=v=vet.

--Austrian (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Austrian (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Geary, James (2018). Wit's End: What Wit Is, How It Works, and Why We Need It. Norton. p. 5-6. ISBN 978-0-39325495-2.

Germanic paganism

"The English scholar H. R. Ellis Davidson links apples to religious practices in Germanic paganism, from which Norse paganism developed." This makes it sound as if there was first something called "Germanic paganism" and later something called "Norse paganism" developed from that, which there is no evidence for whatsoever. Çæñå (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Contradictory Statement

It is stated apple seeds were found in Italy in c. 4000 BCE and also that apples arrived in Europe via the Silk Road.

However, in the Silk Road article, it is said to have existed only since 2000 BCE.

Perhaps it would make sense to add a "citation needed"? I am unsure how to proceed. Eh23233 (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Eh23233, hmm, fair question! My thought is that the silk road statement doesn't mean that there couldn't have been other trading paths coming from east Asia over to Italy/Europe. My guess is that the apples found at the Italian site would be traced to some different source, rather than the Silk Road, but that the Silk Road is what more commonly brought apples to Europe, or popularized them. Since both statements are sourced and they aren't in direct conflict, I think we can leave it for now. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
ah yes, on re-reading it i can see how i got confused - they found maybe domesticated apples but they're not sure and i guess if they are then no-one knows how they got there (:
thank you for the response! <3 Eh23233 (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2024

217.34.48.59 (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC) apples are a very popular fruit
 Not done They are indeed. If you have any specific sourced text to add to Apple#Production, please insert it below so that it can be added to the article, and edit the template above to read answered=no. Certes (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

A previous closure of this discussion was by User:Drmies:

Closed per SNOW, and because the editor who started it is a CU-blocked troll. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I re-closed with different templates in hope that the move bot would handle it correctly. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

– Heya, I have serval reasons arguing that there is no primary topic, let’s get into it. We’re gonna abide by WP:PTOPIC, which reads as follows:

1. A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. As evident by page view statistics, strong popularity and usage of iPhone services and products, the trillion-dollar company is the most likely topic that Wikipedia readers will look for. But wait, there also exists the second point: 2. A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. Apples have huge symbolism in historical mythology, human consumption, and cultural influence. In contemporary times, both the corporation and the fruit are widely recognized and significant. I say neither of these topics deserves merit as a primary one, who's with me? DS537(WIR) 21:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Please note: Before more editors provide their thoughts on this move request, I strongly encourage people to thoroughly WP:READ the RM proposal itself before making any comments. This has to be clarified because although there is substantial consensus that the fruit has more long-term significance than the company (which I agree with), many opposition arguments are based solely upon that claim. Thank you. DS537(WIR) 21:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  • This is a classical example of ambiguity by usage: WikiNav for "Apple" for March '24 shows ~3.4k clickstreams to the company over a total traffic of ~80k, and that 4% or 1/25 is indeed indicative of an issue with navigation from the point of view of reader usage; at the same time WikiNav for "Apple Inc." says there were ~420k incoming views there, which reinforces the former hint. The possibility that in a mass of so many requests there's comparable interest in the fruit and the company/brand is perfectly plausible.
Nevertheless, apple became such a generic, basic English word because it refers to one of the most fundamentally conventional fruits in a lot of the English-speaking world, its long-term significance is not actually comparable with the brand, even if it's a world-wide popular company/brand - it is practically novelty in comparison. So, this is one of the few places where even if we know that we're short-circuiting in a way that leaves a substantial part of readers dependent on search engine short-circuiting logic rather than our navigation - it's probably just fine.
Ultimately, it's hard to say that anybody's astonished by reading about the fruit at "apple" and having to click again for the company/brand. (Oppose) --Joy (talk) 08:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Support per nom. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


"Apples grown from seed tend to be very different from those of their parents"

Nonsense. All you can say is that they CAN be different. Terrible article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.123.60 (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your view, but you are simply wrong on this point. As the article explains, apples are extremely heterozygous, so seeds have a vanishingly small chance of producing the same variety of fruit as their parents. This is the reason why growers go to the trouble of grafting every new tree. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

GA concerns

After reviewing this article, I am concerned that it does not meet the GA criteria anymore. Some of my concerns are listed below:

  • An image gallery is generally frowned upon, per WP:GALLERY, and the multiple images in "Cultivars" should be trimmed down.
  • There are many undeveloped sections, including "Phytochemicals", "Other products", "Research", "Nutrition", "Production", and "Distribution and habitat". This makes me believe that the article is not complete.
  • There are many uncited sentences and paragraphs.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? If not, should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Concerning the Production and Nutrition sections, there is nothing more to say from the sources provided, which are the most authoritative available (UN and USDA, respectively).
For the Phytochemicals and Research sections, there are numerous primary research publications and some low-quality reviews, but it's evident from the discussions in these papers that the content is misleading with exaggerations of health benefits, such as "important antioxidant properties" and "promising therapeutic agents against human diseases", and "apple products have protective effects against cardiovascular diseases, cancer, etc.. There is no good scientific evidence in the clinical research literature, and therefore no WP:MEDRS sources that support such claims. Zefr (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Very much agree that the article looks nothing like the last time(s) it went through any GA review, and another is now due. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I removed a couple of unacceptable medical-related claims. I agree the article needs re-reviewing. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Improved apple diagram

I had a look on the German Wikipedia and there is an good illustration there of the structure of an apple.

Auf Deutsch

I think this image is a potential replacement for the current diagram if relabeled in English. If someone else more expert in image edition does it that would be great, but I can use GIMP and will. Though I would like to discuss I will get to this (eventually), but before I do I'd like feedback on the best labels.

1. Stem/pedicel
2. Cavity
3. Skin
4. Vascular bundle line
5. Seed cavity
6. Apple core
7. Seed
8. Core axis
9. Pistil pit
10. Remnant stamens, styles, and sepals
11. Calyx pit

Is there anyone with more expertise than me? I'm going off other internet labels and my middling knowledge of German. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Auf Englisch
Well, here's the new diagram. It's certainly an improvement, but the labels seem to me to be "inside out", all from the point of view of the highly derived apple structure, with only "pedicel", "seed", "pistil", "remnant stamens..." as indirect clues to what I'd expect to see, viz. "seed", "carpel", "endocarp", "mesocarp", "exocarp", and probably a few structures outside that, i.e. standard botany. It might be better to compare the thing with a pea pod or some more recognisably "standard" fruit so as to show what the structures are botanically, no? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, it looks good. I agree that it should be more botanically explanatory. I always hesitate with botanical terms because I'm self taught and I worry that I'll make a mistake in usage since I still have gaps and oversights in my understanding of things like "carpel" (or think that I do). I think that a version with comparison to a pea would be even better on pome since we could get into the detail in the text explaining why botanists make the distinction between pomes as accessory fruits and other fruits like drupes or berries in the botanical sense. Also, I just noticed a gap. Wikipedia does not have a diagram on legume showing the botanical parts. I've not looked at all other major languages, but I've not found any illustrations to translate so far. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Apple vs peapod anatomy
Right, here's Pome vs Peapod which I've placed at Pome, I think that explains a great deal more and may even give some folks an Aha! moment. Let's hope so.
Apple anatomy, flower and fruit compared
Finally, I hope, here is an image for this article, showing how the apple fruit derives from flower structures. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
You do great work! That's very informative and beautiful. I think I would not have been able to get the lines pointing to the parts removed and replaced so well. While it will never be finished, I am really happy with how the article has come together. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks! (Trade secret: I found the original apple image which had no lines across it.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Table of synonyms

I returned to my table of synonyms idea. I put all the synonyms from POWO into a sortable table. It is simultaneously great and yet way too much. For one thing POWO has 318 synonyms listed. I think maybe it would be more useful if I cut it down to just the species and homotypic synonyms, but even at that I have my doubts. I love being able to see the order in which all these synonyms were published and I've learned some fascinating things including that "monstrosity" used to be a rank. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The table should be a standalone list article, cited to all of its 318 authorities, and linked from here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I did not occur to me to make it a stand alone article, thanks for the idea. Though, I would want to be sure that it would be worthy of an article. Possibly writing some prose about the taxonomy of the apple if I can find good sources. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Excellent! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2024

There is an unnecessary "when" in the last sentence of the first passage of the "Description" section (When young twigs are covered in very fine downy hairs and become hairless as they become older.). Perhaps this could be removed? 150.143.6.129 (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

"Apple Popularity" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Apple Popularity has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 18 § Apple Popularity until a consensus is reached. cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Organizing the references

Due to the very large number of references I think using something like shortened footnote template (Template:Sfn) so at least the book, journal, and magazine references can be organized into alphabetical lists may be helpful to readers. An example of the final result would be like the references for Ludwigsburg Palace as organized by Vami IV. Would this be too disruptive? Do other editors prefer the current inline citation for being easier to quickly use? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a bit of what the Highway Code calls an "unusual manoeuvre" in the middle of the road, given that there is a clearly established citation format here (policy forbids a change in this situation). What is escaping me here is why, given that this is a Good Article already, we'd want to start rearranging the deckchairs? And actually, 114 refs is not exceptionally large... I've just tidied up Anggun at GAR, purely by chance, and it has 350 refs post-cleanup: a little while ago it had 408. If you're thinking of FAC then good luck with that; if you've not done one before, I'd suggest a smaller topic to start with. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Glad I asked rather than just jumping in. Thanks. I had previously changed Penstemon over to sfn citation and had not been told it was an "unusual manoeuvre". Probably because no other active editors are watching the page, unlike here.
I was not yet thinking about FAC, it seems like something that is not well suited to my skill set. Just looking at the article with an eye for making it a bit more useful and pretty with the things I know how to do. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
This apple is pretty shiny already for a GA. There are many other botany articles that could certainly do with a bit of love and attention, if not careful shining up with a soft cloth ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2025

Apples are an incredible fruit, containing several nutrients that can aid the human body. There are many apples in the world. Ermmaam (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done - no comment was offered to make an improvement in the article with a WP:RS source. As the article nutrition section shows, an apple is a low-nutrient food source. Zefr (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Error in table underneath Cultivation - Production

The table seems to be giving Turkey's numbers from 2022 to the US. It states that the US produced 4.8 million tonnes of apples in 2022, but looking at the linked article, Turkey produced 4.8 million tonnes, and the US produced 4.4 million. 2600:1700:7831:1CB0:5354:E688:333C:C63B (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Needless replacement of a lead image

I'm disappointed to see needless replacement of a lead image here. The existing 'fruit' image is compact, serves well for its function of recognition, and is clear and uncluttered. The undiscussed replacement was clearly less good in those respects. Per WP:BRD, even if a needlessly bold intervention was ok under the rules the first time, it was a lot less good the second time. Per the status quo ante, after one revert the existing image or text should stand unless and until a consensus to change it is reached: nothing like that was even attempted here. Also, the formatting of the infobox was needlessly squashed up at the same time, not great. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the 'Cripp's Pink' image is better due to being less cluttered. In addition the white background highlights the displayed apple more clearly. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Pinging user @Nerd271: to ensure he's aware of the discussion. As to the matter of this discussion, I've run into similar issues elsewhere on WP - if the subject is particularly photogenic or compelling, there's a strong tendency for editors to swap in place their own favored photos, as well as adding more. A notable case is the article 'Cat' - feel free to click the edit button and wonder at the glory of the banner presented! I don't think that this article needs to go to such extremes, but I think an embargo on swapping in/out existing images would be appropriate - we have a good variety of images already, and new apple varieties are not all that frequent/common. I do think the use of 'galleries' in multiple place in the article isn't a good visual choice. I've rarely seen galleries used as other than a single larger grouping at the bottom of an article. It breaks the flow of the article for me. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Many thanks. I guess I feel that small relevant galleries per section are more helpful than nothing followed by an unstructured splurge at the end; in this case, with a large number of uninformative images down there too, i.e. it had proven totally unmanageable. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apple/Archive_6&oldid=1287313344"