Jump to content

Talk:Apple/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

TOP 10 Apple producers

In this article, the Top Ten Apple Producers in 2008 are stated to be China, USA, Iran, Turkey, Russia, Italy, India, France, Chile, and Argentina. Clearly, Poland is missing on the third place, with a production of 2,830,870 tonnes per year! This data can also be derived from the source named (FAO: http://faostat.fao.org ).

The TOP TEN would be China 29,851,163 United States of America 4,431,280 Poland 2,830,870 Iran 2,660,000 Turkey 2,504,490 Italy 2,208,227 India 2,001,400 France 1,940,200 Russian Federation 1,467,000 Chile 1,370,000

Sterfaine (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC) I agree, should be corrected immidietly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.186.75.70 (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.186.75.70 (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.76.87 (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Russia production in 2009: 1,441,200 tons, please correct the article (source: http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/download/Q/QC/E) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.40.44.86 (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Apple core picture

My picture might not be the best but for the sake of argument it shows how edible the core of an apple actually is. I just thought, on seeing the picture of the half eaten apple in the article, it would be natural to point out that the apple is actually edible all the way through. This picture is hardly a professional illustration, but the way it is cut with the knife in segments, something like this should be used to illustrate the core, not a half-sniffed waste of an apple.

~ R.T.G 20:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

apple production units are incorrect

The units used in the "production" subsection are incorrect. They are listed as "(in million metric tons)". The FAOSTAT website uses "MT" to mean "metric tonne", not "megatonne". So where, for instance, China is listed as #1 in 2011 with "35,985,000", that number is in reality "36 million metric tonnes", not "36 million megatonnes". FAOSTAT's website is confusing on this point, but their new database clears it up, and their old database has a "FAQ" in which the question "Q:(13.) What does MT mean?" is answered "A: This unit of measurement means Metric Tonne (1000 kg)."

A.J. in Pittsburgh 2001:558:6035:41:2CDE:5B4C:94A1:2A02 (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The apple's anus?

What is the name of the conical cavity in the apple where the stem is attached? — O'Dea (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Cavity region. --NeilN talk to me 02:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, thank you! What a surprising name for it. I really didn't expect it to be designated a "region". I wonder if the junction between stem and fruit has the same name in other fruit, such as a tomato. I must also find out what the diametrically opposite part of a fruit is called, such as in an orange, where there is a small woody or fibrous little disc. Thanks again. — O'Dea (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
On further reflection, I am unconvinced by "cavity region". Botanical terms are normally more precise and rigorous, such as peduncle, pericarp, and calyx. Whatever the term is, it is surprisingly obscure. — O'Dea (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be much need to described the shape of the fruit precisely (and thus no existing precise botanical term). I've looked through several floras, and the only detailed description of the fruit I found is that it's "indented at both ends". "Sinus" is a general botanical term for gaps and cavities that could apply to the indentations; "posterior sinus" or perhaps "peduncular sinus" if you want something more precise. If the stem (peduncle) has detached from a tomato, you've got an "abcission scar" where it joined. The disc on an orange is the "receptacle". Plantdrew (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2014

Please remove one of the redundant photos of Granny Smith apples under the section Cultivation/Breeding. Davedgd (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Done --ElHef (Meep?) 03:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

The article has a section vandalized maybe from some angry Bulgarians. Content History: original sourse: http://web.archive.org/web/20080121045236/http://www.uga.edu/fruit/apple.html Alexander the Great is credited with finding dwarfed apples in Asia Minor in 300 BC; those he brought back to Greece. Has become: Alexander the Great is credited with finding dwarfed apples in Asia Minor in 300 BC; those he brought back to Macedonia.

Can you revert back to the original? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.86.152.83 (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Apple : a useless fruit ?

As per nutrition chart, this fruit is deficient in every vitamin, mineral, protein and useful fatty acids. Why say "Apple a day..." ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.85.199 (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Please read the article again. The percentages are by weight and not % of recommeneded daily intake. The figures show that apples are a significant contributor of many vitamins and minerals as well as a good source of dietary carbohydrate and fibre.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hades & Persephone

Anyone wanna bother including the story of HADES & PERSEPHONE? After Hades kidnaps a woman named Persephone. While she is his captive, he offers her an apple, which she eats. She is then the eternal captive of Hades who she later consents to marry. 70.57.88.234 (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Can we please remove a sub-heading about The Garden of Eden?

Can we PLEASE remove the subheading that says "The Apple in the Garden of Eden" ? The fruit that Adam and Eve touched was NOT an apple - it was the fruit of The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Although the section under the sub-heading does point out that the tree in Genesis is not identified (and I am not even sure that that is correct), I have a fear that having this stupid sub-heading is only going to perpetuate the fiction that is so commonly endorsed by the ignorant that Adam and Eve touched an apple. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

While I do see your point (a very good one indeed), I can't come up with a better subheading that captures the essence of the section quite like what we have now.
Cheers!
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 21:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


how about "Christian mythology"? Paradoxum (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not just Christian Folk-Lore. The Apple is in actuality, an iconic symbol specifically found in most religions...& if you look at who wrote The Bible (MOSES THE FALLEN EGYPTIAN PRINCE) then you recognize that The Bible is based upon even older stories & this is probably where the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil is associated with The Apple.

70.57.88.234 (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Legends and mythology

The apple in the Old Testament and the "golden apple" in greek mythology are most probably Quince. Quince have been known much older times than apples. Reference: Wikipedia's [quince] page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.247.199.50 (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The apple in the Old Testament was much more likely to have been a pomegranate.

falterdg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falterdg (talk • contribs) 20:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I heard it was also possibly a fig; but could I give one? Well obviously just enough figs to write this - but apples and pomegranates are referred to in Song of songs/song of Solomon and translated as such - so the evidence is that there was no specified fruit as the 'forbidden fruit' or at least if it was understood as such culturally the fruit itself had undergone a level of redemption (if it needed it) to be part of the canon in a positive picture (there is opposite opinions but SoS is generally regarded as a positive exemplar of love)- and also there they act as sexual metaphors for straight sexual activity (reaching up to the apple tree and taking those apples in hand); apples are taken as positive Christian symbols because of the star pattern but true there is also a balance of superstition and the story of the naming of the lump in the throat; and although Song of songs is banned in certain US states (I heard) 78.105.113.56 (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Didn't realise I wasn't logged in when I wrote the above; sorry! Kathybramley (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


All of you are ignorant. It was most likely an APPLE because all the other religions have APPLES as the iconic symbol of bitter-sweet & hidden knowledge. The Bible itself was written by MOSES who was a PRINCE OF EGYPT who was educated by EGYPTIANS. The Bible is actually based heavily upon older sources. It's a slightly different story with the same characters & symbols, but different meanings. So it is not logical to assume the fruit was anything else but an apple.

WHO FREAKING CARES ANYWAYS! 70.57.88.234 (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Evolutionary Advantage of Components Information Request

I came to this article seeking to confirm the theory that the juicy and sweet flesh of the apple fruit is advantageous specifically because it incites animals to consume it, and then to deposit the seeds far from the tree, rather than because it provides nutrients for the seed to grow during its initial stages of germination. I haven't really found much regarding this type of information on the article. Could anyone knowledgeable about this please include some of this info in the article, or at least include a link to a different article that discusses it in more detail? Please and thank you! I appreciate the help. Zhukant (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Many apples are the opposite of sweet. Cooking apples, for example, are very tart. Sorry about your theory but I can pay for the damage. — O'Dea (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
see Fruit
Gravuritas (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is about...

Why is the first suggestion in the headline Apple Inc.? Where's the suggestion one may be looking for Apple Corps? This side isn't just used by computer nerds, so a nod to the first company by that name should be made in the headline. Or just say "This article is about the fruit, for other uses see Apple (disambiguation)."Smintili (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about "computer nerds", or whichever company came first. According to Wikipedia Traffic Statistics, Apple Inc. was viewed 278,800 times in May 2014, versus 8244 views for Apple Corps (or the former was viewed roughly 33 times as often as the latter). While numbers can be read various ways, it's fairly clear that most people needing the hatnote are looking for Apple Inc. (possibly even more than the fruit, with this article having 112,661 views in May). The point of the hatnote is to be helpful - mentioning Apple Inc. specifically would appear to do just that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2014

The scientific name for the domestic apple is not Malus domestica it is instead Malus pumila.

See reference: D.J. MABBERLEY, C.E. JARVIS & B.E. JUNIPER (2001) The name of the apple. Telopea 9: 421-430

Therefore all references to 'Malus domestica should be replaced with Malus pumila Col r ford (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This source seems to prefer "Malus domestica". —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Death Note (Anime/Manga) Snowwhite (Disney) Twilight Saga (apple scene) Apple inc. and the neuro-research done on how it relates to religious experiences — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.45.119.62 (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Asia Minor; NOT "Turkey"

The article, under the History section, implies that Turkey existed in ancient times. Turks are not an indigenous people to the Mediterranean. The article should state that apples were first cultivated in East Anatolia or East Asia Minor, not in "East Turkey". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.242.121.108 (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2015


The "Proverbs" section, introduced by user Hridith Sudev Nambiar on August 19th, 2014, contains several fallacies. Prior to that edit of the entry, the page simply contained the information that the phrase "an apple a day keeps the doctor away" originated in Wales in the 1800s, and implies nothing more than reference to the nutritional value of the commonly eaten apple.

Nambiar placed a new section at the end of the article entitled "Proverbs" which claims that Caroline Taggart coined the saying in her book "An Apple a Day". In fact, Taggart's book was first printed in 2011, and Taggart is a contemporary author who by no means coined (or claimed to coin) the term. Her entry in "An Apple a Day" contains none of the ensuing information quoted here about earlier versions, either. The book, its copyright information and even the article in question are all freely viewable by clicking the "Look Inside" button in the Amazon.com entry for her book, located at http://www.amazon.com/Apple-Day-Old-Fashioned-Proverbs---Timeless/dp/1606521918/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1420132830&sr=8-2&keywords=Caroline+Taggart.

After making several statements about original versions, again, not found in Taggart, he then quotes Michael Pollan's view on apples in frontier America as being solely a source of alcoholic beverages. The claim is made that the popular saying arose from a liquor advertising campaign in the 1900s, when growers of hard cider and apple wine pushed the slogan against the temperance movement. Pollan's famous assertion of this was done with no sources quoted, and Pollan himself admits on p. 9 of "The Botany of Desire" that his views on apples being grown solely for alcoholic value has no documentary evidence but was a logical deduction based on his understanding that apples grown from seeds are simply inedible, and cannot be used for any other purpose. This is not at all true, as entire consortiums of non-grafting apple growers exist in the United States alone. Countless documentary sources from past times, from Benjamin Franklin's entries on apples in the Farmer's Almanac to Renaissance paintings of apples on common tables to the published obituary of Johnny Appleseed himself contradict Pollan's view. In fact, Taggart, in the entry in her book on the "an apple a day" proverb, states that it is centuries old and refers to the eating of the common apple, that is has been a common saying in Britain (and, by extension, the British colony of America) for centuries, and was popular long before the early 1900s.

In conclusion, Nambiar's assertion that Taggart coined the term is easily proven false by even a glace at the book in question, first published in 2011, and his ensuing statements about American hard cider growers popularizing the term is a non-cited assertion by Pollan and contradicted by Taggart, Franklin, and countless other historical documents which come well before the time.

As all of the information in the "Proverbs" section is either simply inaccurate or comes from a non-cited assertion, I request that this recently-added section be deleted.Profludwig27 (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Profludwig27 (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Rejected @Profludwig27:Please see the instructions for semi-protected edit requests.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  23:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

"Proverbs" section inaccuracies: invitation to discussion

The "Proverbs" section, introduced by user Hridith Sudev Nambiar on August 19th, 2014, contains several fallacies. Prior to that edit of the entry, the page simply contained the information that the phrase "an apple a day keeps the doctor away" originated in Wales in the 1800s, and implies nothing more than reference to the nutritional value of the commonly eaten apple.

Nambiar placed a new section at the end of the article entitled "Proverbs" which claims that Caroline Taggart coined the saying in her book "An Apple a Day". In fact, Taggart's book was first printed in 2011, and Taggart is a contemporary author who by no means coined (or claimed to coin) the term. Her entry in "An Apple a Day" contains none of the ensuing information quoted here about earlier versions, either. The book, its copyright information and even the article in question are all freely viewable by clicking the "Look Inside" button in the Amazon.com entry for her book, located at http://www.amazon.com/Apple-Day-Old-Fashioned-Proverbs---Timeless/dp/1606521918/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1420132830&sr=8-2&keywords=Caroline+Taggart.

After making several statements about original versions, again, not found in Taggart, he then quotes Michael Pollan's view on apples in frontier America as being solely a source of alcoholic beverages. The claim is made that the popular saying arose from a liquor advertising campaign in the 1900s, when growers of hard cider and apple wine pushed the slogan against the temperance movement. In fact, Taggart, in the entry in her book on the "an apple a day" proverb, states that it is centuries old and refers to the eating of the common apple, that is has been a common saying in Britain (and, by extension, the British colony of America) for centuries, and was popular long before the early 1900s, now as then in Britain, which never dealt with the temperance movement at all, making its role in popularizing the phrase suspect.

Even more importantly, however, the author is misquoting Pollan in saying this. On p. 49 of "Botany of Desire" Pollan does not claim that the slogan was made to promote hard cider, but rather was used to promote common edible apples, as common knowledge affirms, following the advent of refrigeration in America. The slogan arose not to promote alcohol, but to save the apple industry by promoting eating apples, according to Pollan.

In conclusion, Nambiar's assertion that Taggart coined the term is easily proven false by even a glace at the book in question, first published in 2011, and his ensuing statements about American hard cider growers popularizing the term is a non-cited assertion and contradicted by Taggart, Franklin, and countless other historical documents which come well before the time.

As all of the information in the "Proverbs" section is either simply inaccurate or comes from a non-cited assertion, it seems reasonable for us to just delete this section.

Any support or dissenting opinions would be greatly appreciated.

Profludwig27 (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the gross error (coinage by Taggart). The temperance movement cutting into sales of cider in the 1900s seems to be decades too late. Agree with improve (pref using at least one more source) or delete.
Gravuritas (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick fix, Gravuritas. After reviewing the Pollan quote in "Botany of Desire", I have also discovered that the author is badly misquoting Pollan. On the cited p. 49 of Pollan, far from alleging that the proverb arose to promote hard cider, Pollan asserts that the slogan was used to promote the commonly eaten apple, in response to the temperance movement's practical destruction of the hard cider industry, making the latter half of the "Proverbs" section even more worthy of either serious revision or deletion.

Profludwig27 (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's the actual Pollan paragraph that the poster is quoting (p. 50, Botany of Desire):

"A far more brutal winnowing of the apple's prodigious variability took place around the turn of the century. That's when the temperance movement drove cider underground and cut down the American cider orchard, that wildness preserve and riotous breeding ground of apple originality. Americans began to eat rather than drink their apples, thanks in part to a PR slogan: "An apple a day keeps the doctor away." Around the same time, refrigeration made possible a national market for apples, and the industry got together and decided it would be wise to simplify that market by planting and promoting only a small handful of brand-name varieties."

Nowhere in this does Pollan state that the term "originated" there, and Taggart and many others prove that it does not. So we could remove the "originated" word and a few other fallacies to reflect Pollan's statement, but then we run into an issue of whether such a tiny point about use of the slogan at one point in American history is important enough to be included in a general article on apples, and the even greater point that Pollan himself cites no sources for the information in the first place.Profludwig27 (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2015

Please remove the recently-added section entitled "Proverbs" at the bottom of the "Apple" page. See below semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2015 for explanation. Profludwig27 (talk) Note:request moved/edited for clarity by  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC).

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The edit could not be automatically undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to have someone undo the change, it must be discussed on this talk page and a consensus reached. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Request re-submitted. The matter was put to discussion as requested. Over a month has passed, and no opposition to the proposed changes has arisen. A helpful editor fixed the errors in the first part of the Proverbs section, making those changes unnecessary, so the current edit request is to eliminate only these sentences:

"This was later developed in 1900s by American apple growers who produced hard cider and apple-cider based wines which sprang as an advertisement and grew into an American proverb. It originated in the 1900s as a marketing slogan by growers concerned that the temperance movement would cut into the sales of their hard cider, the principal market for apples at the time."

If elimination is not possible, then in order to reflect what is actually stated in the poster's source (Michael Pollan, Botany of Desire, p. 50), it should be changed to this:

"It was utilized in the early 1900s by American apple growers who formerly produced hard cider and cider-based wines to market the eating of apples when the temperance movement eliminated the consumer base for alcoholic beverages."

This would correct the fallacies that the term "originated" there and that it "grew into an American proverb" (as Taggart, Franklin and others state, it was already an American proverb at the time). It also removes several grammatical errors ("developed in 1900s," etc.). However, it seems relatively insignificant to mention such a brief and limited use of a centuries-old proverb with no other examples, and elimination of the sentences seems more appropriate. Please see discussion below for all details.Profludwig27 (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Done Note that you're now autoconfirmed, so you can edit the article yourself as well. Sunrise (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Almaty, Kazakhstan

The city of Almaty is thought to be named after the word "apple", and has a long tradition of being known as the "Father of Apples". It is also located at the "genetic center" of modern apples, basically where we think apples originated from.

Just a little bit of trivia I think should be included somewhere. 173.81.128.130 (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

editing request: apple blossom dates in England

In the Cultivation>Pollination section, the article lists implausibly late blossom times for England, ranging from May 1st to May 28. No reference is provided. Based in East Anglia, I have never observed such late blossom times for the listed varieties.

Instead, for Orleans Reinette we have observed (East Anglia):

  • 2009 April 20
  • 2010 April 27
  • 2011 April 11
  • 2012 none (Reinette is biennial)
  • 2013 May 7
  • 2014 April 19
  • 2015 April 30 (full blossom May 5)

And for Cox Orange Pippin we have observed (East Anglia):

  • 2009 April 15
  • 2010 April 26
  • 2011 April 10
  • 2012 April 24
  • 2013 May 4
  • 2014 April 6 (sic!)
  • 2015 April 22

These dates are noted when one third of blossoms are open. Full blossom can take a day or up to a week longer, depending on weather, and not normally in May. These are free-standing trees, with no sheltering wall within 15 metres. Can an editor please provide a reference for the claimed May blossoming times?

If not, can a user from another English location, ideally further north, please report their Cox and Reinette blossoming times here in the next month or two? For the year 2015 at least. Thus the truth will out in the next 60 days... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.122.230 (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Popularity of cultivers

I'm referring to the lines "Most North Americans and Europeans favor sweet, subacid apples................Indian subcontinent". This seems to be a blanket statement and the cited references do not support it. While 40 is a dead link, I found the possible article being referenced at http://casfs.ucsc.edu/documents/News-Notes/fall_06.pdf and it does not contain any information about the popularity of cultivars around the globe. Reference 41 is similarly devoid of relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.20.11 (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2015

GODZZwarmachine (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC) apple  Not done This is not a request to change anything. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

evolution and ecology

i want to find out what animals propagate the seeds and eat the fruit, but can't find any research :(

just gonna leave these here... http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/abstract/S0168-9525%2813%2900190-X?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS016895251300190X%3Fshowall%3Dtrue http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/32363/0 http://botany.wisc.edu/courses/botany_940/06CropEvol/papers/Harris&02.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.164.219 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2015

The term Christian should be changed to Judeo-Christian throughout the article. Samuel Bernofsky (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Inomyabcs (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Apple waste

That apple is not mostly eaten. It is partially eaten and throwing it away is a waste of food. --Nelsonbarrantes6 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I would say the same .. but unfortunately that's how most people/"the mainstream" tend to eat and see apples - i eat the whole thing - only the wooden stem remains. Another thing that really bugs me about the article is the fear about cyanide toxicity, which certainly is incorrect in this form and is spread again far and wide. I and many others even guess that the organic cyanides are healthy and anti-cancerous b17 etc .. though that's a major part of the fallacy of wikipedia - to not stay npov and allow more than "the mainstream" opinion - as mostly everything here is opinion to a certain degree - unfortunately criticism/alternative view sections are non existent and tend to be erased. --Ebricca (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2015

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. JQTriple7 talk 07:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata Q89 vs Q158657

English Wikipedia does not show in https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q89 Is that expected? --Netol (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Netol: Do you work with Wikidata much? Because I don't and I'm not very clear on the mechanics over there. This article covers both Q89 and Q158657. I tried adding this article to Q89 but got an error message about it already being used by Q158657. I recently became aware of P1582 and it's converse P1672. en.Wikipedia has quite a few cases where the "taxon source of" and "natural product of" properties are covered in the same article (with a redirect for the other sense). I guess Q158657 should link to the redirects Malus domestica or Malus pumila, and Q89 should link to "apple"? Plantdrew (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: No I do not. I was trying to understand how it works when I saw that non-english Wikipedias don't link to the English version of "Apple" (see for example https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manzana) --Netol (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Netol: In the ES wikipedia they have Manzano and Manzana. The former, about the tree, is a redirect to Malus domestica, which is linked to this page. The latter has its own page about the fruit. The EN wikipedia seems to be unusual in that material that is strictly about the fruit has been jammed onto the same page as material that is about the tree and the species, making one very large page. My preference would be to divide it up, as is done with coffee and banana, which are clearly documented here as coming from more than one species of plant, so it has been easy to argue against wp:commonname. Modern apples also include a lot of hybrids other than Malus domestica, but what little information is here about them is jammed into applecrab. Their descendants, particularly those listed at applecrab#Scab-resistant–apples should be mentioned on the apple page, but are currently hidden away, giving the impression that all apples are Malus domestica. The Apple page shouldn't have a taxobox ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit request: add Phlorizin to the list of flavonoids contained in apple. See Phlorizin main article

Interesting. Added. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Redirect to Apple Inc.

I am sure most people searching for apple on Wikipedia want to get to the Apple Inc. page. I think there should be a default redirect it. If administrators can compare a visitors count for both articles and decide over it, which article is more important, it will be convenient for the humanity to get to the Apple Inc.'s page in one take, just putting apple in a search box and hit 'Enter'. Editors like me will benefit too, due to a simplified linking.

Please read the discussion above as why there is no consensus for that case. The fruit has more historical significance and is a vital core topic. This helps safeguard that the the site remains encyclopaedic, and not rapidly changed as a result of news spikes, recent events, or the latest pop culture topics, which skews searches. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
That discussion has been archived. And despite Apple Inc. getting all the attention in the news this day, Apple the fruit is a primary topic with respect to long term significance, even though Apple Inc. might be used significantly. It is for the same reason we do not want Apple to be a dab page just because of the company's influence on modern day culture. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, Apple Inc. is the primary topic with respect to usage. To quote WP:Primary Topic...
"In many cases, the topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance. In many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus determines which article, if any, is the primary topic."
So what should be done given "there is no consensus" (as stated by User:Zzyzx11 above)? I have a suggestion. However, before making this suggestion, I just want to say that I don't expect anything to change, since it seems that primary usage means very little around here (e.g. see Corn). So even though Apple Inc. sees 3x the amount of traffic as Apple [1] (and let's be honest, it would be more like 100x if "Apple" went to a dap), I'm sure everyone will hate this idea... Apple could redirect to Apple Inc., and this page could be renamed to Apples (similar to the deal struck between Window and Windows).

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2016

Under 8.5 Allergy, I believe there needs to be a minor change and a separate addition. The change is to the 4th sentence of paragraph 1. Currently reads "This reaction only occurs when raw fruit is consumed—the allergen is neutralized in the cooking process.", and should read something like "This reaction only occurs when raw or partially cooked fruit is consumed—the allergen is neutralized if the apple is well cooked."

The sentence to add should be something like the following: This apple allergy may also be triggered by some foods containing pectin, as pectin can be sourced from apple pomace.

(I know the above facts from personal experience - I can only eat able where it has been well cooked/stewed, and some brands of jams cause the reaction in me due to the use of apple pectin)

49.183.75.57 (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Rather than applying personal experience, please find a WP:SECONDARY source that supports the statement, then you could insert the edit with reference into the article yourself. --Zefr (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Pyramid contents please

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2016

Omkar164 (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Omkar164: 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. JTP (talk • contribs) 16:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Dispute of china as top producer

The Chinese culture always exaggerate everything by a factor of 10. Its really 3,700,000. instead of 37,000,000. Even 3.7 million is hard to believe since you barely see apples sold in stores in china, unless you are counting asian pears, plums, or oranges as apples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applediscordia (talk • contribs) 07:00, 5 March 2014‎ (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2017

Why nothing about my Apple iPad 3 on the apple article please add info about iPad and other Apple devices 24.97.253.174 (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: From the gold box: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". At the top of the article is a redirect to Apple Inc.. --Zefr (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not done: If you have suggestions for the Apple Inc. article, please make them at Talk:Apple Inc. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Apple surname

The Apple surname exists in different languages; Apple, Appel, Appell, Appleman, Apfel, Aphal, Aphale, Apfler, Apfelmann, Appelman, Eppel, Epel, Epelman, Appelberg, Applebaum, Applegate, Applegarth, Applegath, Apeltun, Epletune, Aeppeltun, Applewhaite, Applethwaite, Applewhite, Ablewhite, Abblewhite, Appleyard, Oeppel, Apple, Appel, Appoell, Epple, Eppel, Applebe, Applebee, Applebey, Appleby, Appleford, Sagaraigar, Sagartegui, Sagarteguieta, Sagardi, Sagardoi, Sagardoqui, Sagarminaga, Sagasta, Sagastabeitia, Sagasti, Sagasty, Sagastiberria, Sagastigoitia, Sagastizabal, Sagues, Sagar, Sagarbarria, Sagarburu, Sagarciague, Sagarchoury, Sagarda, Sagardia, Sagardegi, Sagardiluz, Sagardiluze, Sagardinaga, Sagardokl, Sagardoqui, Sagardoy, Sagarduy, Sagardoy, Sagar-Erreka, Sagarmendi, Sagarminaga, Sagarna, Sagarra, Sagarraga, Sagarraga, Sagarragoiti, Sagarralde, Sagarribay, Sagarteguieta, Sagarza, Sagarzazu, Sagarziague, Sagarzola, Sagarzurieta, Sagaseta, Sagasta, Sagasola, Sagazola, Sagaspe, Sagaseta, Sagastabeitia, Sagastagoya, Sagastasola, Sagastegui, Sagastia, Sagastibelza, Sagastiberri, Sagastigain, Sagastizabal, Sagastume, Mela or Mella, Melli, Meli, Melo, Mello, Mellea, Poma, Pomar or Pommar, Pereiro, Pereiros, Pereyro, Pereyros, Do Pereyro, Do Pereiro, Dopereyro, Dopereiro, Pereiru, Pereiró, Perero, Pereros, Pereiroa, Pereiroás, Pereirua, Pereirón, Pereiruga, Pero or Pêro, Perol, Macieira, Maceira, Maceiras, Maciñeira, Maciera, Maceda, Macedo, Manzana, Manzano, Manzanar, Manzanares, Manzanero. --Hope 23:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Apple. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 14:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apple/Archive_4&oldid=1083507099"