Talk:Giant pumpkin

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Agriculture Low‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

A fact from Giant pumpkin appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 May 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that while the current record-holding giant pumpkin weighed 2,624.6 lb (1,190.5 kg), an ideal pumpkin could grow up to 20,000 lb (9,100 kg)?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Giant pumpkin.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Giant pumpkin

... that while the current record holding giant pumpkin weighed 2,624.6 lb (1,190.5 kg), a scientist at Georgia Tech calculated that an ideal pumpkin could grow up to 20,000 lb (9,100 kg)? "In fact, mechanical engineer David Hu and colleagues at the Georgia Institute of Technology have been investigating pumpkin growth....Hu thinks they can get even bigger. To figure out how much bigger, he and his colleagues placed pumpkins of various sizes in a vise-like instrument and subjected the fruits to pressure until they cracked. These force measurements led them to estimate just how big a pumpkin might get in a perfect world. The answer: 20,000 pounds." [1], [2]<
- ALT1:... that a scientist at Georgia Tech calculated that an ideal giant pumpkin could grow up to 20,000 lb (9,100 kg)?

Comment: The DYK check tool says it isn't eligible, but I think it is miscounting the list. Regardless, I have expanded the prose text from 110 characters to ~5,000. Compare to [3]. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Japanese Red List

5x expanded by CaptainEek (talk). Self-nominated at 22:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

what makes 'giantpumpkin.com' a reliable source? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think your revision for 5x expansion is technically Special:Permalink/593046794 or possibly Special:Permalink/283405360, but am not sure. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: Interesting, didn't realize the page was once larger. Looks like it had been about "Atlantic Giant", but then got changed to be about Giant Pumpkin and all the material was removed. So thus I came across a single sentence article, not sure if that counts or not. With regards to giantpumpkin.com, I have no reason to doubt its validity. However, I will endeavor to find individual articles for each record. That may understandably take a bit :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek and Eddie891: I do find that the question about whether 5-fold expansion was achieved to be quite interesting. At first I thought the article was ineligible, because e.g. supplementary rule A4 states that it is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was. But then Wikipedia:Did you know/Fivefold gives an example, which seems to indicate that only the previously existing version is compared against. I do find the latter stance to be more reasonable, as it's quite hard to check every single revision of a page back to 2006 or so. And if you miss just a single instance were the article was vandalised with a wall of text, your hard work becomes ineligible? Doesn't make sense.

So unlikely cases of "cheating" aside, I think only the recent revisions should be checked against. And since the article had essentially been a one-liner since at least 2018 (and several revisions since), I would argue that this makes it eligible for DYK under the 5x expansion rule.

But I must say I agree about giantpumpkin.com. Might be reliable, might be not; I'm a bit sceptical since there is no one named as "responsible" for the information. Is this the official site of a pumpkin weighing organization? Or is it just someone's personal homepage where they collected these stats? Maybe I am overlooking it, but I couldn't find that. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek, Eddie891, and LordPeterII: I'm going to jump in here and say that from this edit to this edit is a five time expansion. The article is sourced. The hook is sourced. Hook Alt0 is okay. Passes earwig. I dropped a photo into this nomination (feel free to change it). I am coming late to this. If one of the earlier commenters want to take credit for the review, please do. I say this is GTG. --evrik ^(talk) 21:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alt0a ... that while the current record holding giant pumpkin weighs 2,624.6 lb (1,190.5 kg), an ideal pumpkin could grow up to 20,000 lb (9,100 kg)?

Putting Alt0a out there for the promoter. --evrik ^(talk) 14:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evrik The article and the given source seems to say that 2,624.6 pounds (1,190.5 kg) from 2016 is the current record holder. SL93 (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging nominator CaptainEek. SL93 (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SL93 Good catch. I fixed it. Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 14:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alt0a, with fix, looks right to me, and is more concise than what the rather wordy me could come up with :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very NA-centric location naming scheme in the world records table

In the world records table, states in the US and provinces/territories in Canada are listed as locations without any indication that they are in the US or Canada, whereas world records from other countries have their location are just recorded as the country. I think this should be changed (because many people may not know where any of these places are), but not sure what the best approach would be. Rofa33 (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]