Talk:Mandarin orange/Archive 1

Archive 1

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): Alexisjeong.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Moved from article, pending documentation: "They got their name because they were once exploited by leaders (mandarins) in China." This sounds like folk etymology; it can go back if someone has evidence. Vicki Rosenzweig 04:47, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Mandarin Orange = Mikan ?

Is a mandarin orange the same as what the Japanese call a "mikan"? There is a separate page on mikan that implies this, but the Japanese language version says the mikan is a different species (Citrus unshiu) I'm not very knowledgeable on fruit but I was just curious. If they are one and the same it seems like the mandarin orange and mikan articles should be merged and a link should be provided to the Japanese language page on mikan. CES 06:21, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Although some websites say it is, I don't believe the mikan is C. reticulata, but instead C. unshiu. There are many characteristics which set this fruit apart from other mandarin oranges. I believe the text of this article should be changed to reflect this. Badagnani 01:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Delite

There is another variety called Delite.

The discovery of the Delite was first made in Morocco where it originally developed as a hybrid from an existing mandarin tree. It was officially released to growers in the United States in 1992. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.82.189 (talk • contribs) .

Capitalization

I am confused. In the article the term "mandarin" is at some points capitalized and at others not capitalized. Which is correct? I guess it depends on if the term "mandarin" combined with "orange" to be a proper noun ("Mandarin orange," which I think would only be if it were a brand name), or if "mandarin" is merely an adjective for "orange" (in which case it would be "mandarin orange"). I guess my questions are:

1. Is my analysis correct?
   • If not, what is wrong with it?
2. Is there even a brand name title "Mandarin orange" or "Mandarin Orange"?
   • Is this article referring to brand or to a non-specific orange?

Thanks. I know I'm being nit-picky, but I am cleaning up kinnow and wanted to know specifically what to do with the occurences of "mandarin orange". --Iamunknown 08:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not capitalized. I think there was a misapprehension that it was named after a place called Mandarin. The article has been corrected. Nurg (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Reorganization

I justed reorganized the text. I think I kept everything; I just think it flows more now. But you may disagree! (I probably will at a later time too.) Please improve it! I am less knowledgeable concerning the topic than concerning others, but would nonetheless like to see this article improved. Specifically, my wishes for it are added inline references and standardization of capitalization (See above). --Iamunknown 09:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Drought Tolerance

"The tree is more tolerant to drought than the fruit." Can anyone explain what this means? (And the implications) I could understand "Mandarin trees are more drought tolerant than regular oranges," but comparing the tree and the fruit is just bizarre. In fact, the whole second paragraph sounds like random facts stuck together with little rationale. -- 00:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would interpret that as saying the tree will survive a drought that will cause all its fruit to wither and die. --Eyrian 01:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Tangerines

Why is there both a mandarin orange article and a tangerine article, when both articles acknowledge that they're talking about C. reticulata? One should be merged. --76.223.219.98 03:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC

I want to post the same question!--217.232.97.196 (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I suggest that the two articles be merged unless one is a variety of the other. --71.167.231.134 (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree/disagree-- the Tangerine page is for the certain variation of the mandarin, such as the Clementine,the Mikan (Satusuma in English), the Fairchild tangerine, the Tangelo, the Naartjie, and the Kinnow. If you are to morph Tangerine with Mandarin orange i would morph the others listed too. I would put them all into different sections, collaborated nicely. matthewpaulster (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This difference lead to confusion. There are many external language links begin as "mandar-" in both pages. Even sometimes these two link to the same page. I've just adjust the Chinese link, but I'm worry that the error will soon be replaced and introduced again by bots. --LunarShaddowღIvy (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

References

None of the citrus fruits named above, are C. reticulata. They are all different species (except maybe, arguably, tangerines ...but there is no clear evidence, of that being the case)

• Tangerine: Apparently debated. Either Citrus tangerina, Citrus × tangerina, or treated as a variety of either Citrus reticulata (i.e. mandarin), or Citrus × aurantium (bitter orange)
• Clementine: Citrus × clementina. Hybrid between a willowleaf mandarin orange (C. × deliciosa) and a sweet orange (C. × sinensis)
• Satsuma/Mikan: Citrus unshiu
• Tangelo: Citrus × tangelo (a hybrid of mandarin and some Citrus maxima variety)
• Fairchild tangerine: Hybrid of an Orlando tangelo (a variant of Citrus × tangelo) and a clementine.
• Kinnow: Hybrid of King Orange (Citrus nobilis) × Willow Leaf Mandarin (Citrus × deliciosa)--155.4.221.27 (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

More info please

I would really like to see a breakdown or table of what the nutritional values and chemical properties of Mandarins are. Someone once told me they were alkaline rather than acidic but I find this implausable. Can anybody help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.145.148.3 (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

KINNOW

kinnow can be added to this article

Kinnow is Citrus nobilis x Citrus deliciosa, not Citrus reticulata. --LunarShaddowღIvy (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with article

Why does Citrus nobilis redirect here, but the term "nobilis" is nowhere to be found in this article? Badagnani (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Just redirected it. I hope I didn't make things worse. --LunarShaddowღIvy (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

World Production table

...is fixed now. There seems to have been some confusion of which countries produced how much, probably because the source data isn't easy to navigate and is listed under "Tangerines, Mandarins, Clem." I triple checked the numbers and re-sorted the list properly. There is more data to fill out to the top 20, but leaving it at top ten by quantity Italy got the axe and Pakistan came in at #10. And I'm pretty sure the USSR wasn't producing a danged thing in 2007. Cheers! -:-  AlpinWolf   -:- 20:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well done! AtticusX (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I updated the table with 2011 figures. Lisztmacher (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mandarin orange (fruit) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Chinese name

Does anybody know why the Chinese name of the fruit is mentioned? Nothing in the article suggests the relevance of this mention, as far as I can see. If no-one knows why it should be mentioned, I suggest deletion of the Chinese name from this article; IMHO translations that aren't of significance to the subject treated in the article belong in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. -Doanri (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Because this fruit originated in China. 173.88.241.33 (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Gold Nugget Mandarin

To add to article: mention of the Gold Nugget mandarin. 173.88.241.33 (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mandarin orange. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130401115157/http://faostat3.fao.org/home/index.html to http://faostat3.fao.org/home/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pfaf.org/database/plants.php?Citrus%20reticulata

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Significance of Mandarin oranges in Chinese culture

For a tradition thats still going strong today, there isn't enough information why the mandarin is included in Chinese New Year

Merger discussion

The following discussion 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.

---

The justification given when Mandarin orange (fruit) was created (see move discussion, comments of User:Moscow Connection who had just created the page) was that the fruit described on Mandarin orange relates specifically to Citrus reticulata, while the term 'mandarin orange' is broader, describing as the page states, "Citrus reticulata, Citrus unshiu, Citrus reshni, and various hybrids". This distinction is based on using Citrus reticulata as applied by Citrus taxonomy#Citrus naming systems#Tanaka who used the name for just one of dozens of species of mandarin, but the page Mandarin orange is defining Citrus reticulata in a different sense, Citrus taxonomy#Citrus naming systems#Swingle's view that all of the different variants of mandarin to which Tanaka assigned these different species names represent variants of a single species, Citrus reticulata. In other words, Mandarin orange and Mandarin orange (fruit) are describing exactly the same constellation of fruit, but only appear to be different based on the differing taxonomic perspectives of Tanaka and Swingle. They thus represent a content fork. At the time Moscow Connection suggested two pages, one restricted to discussing the Citrus reticulata (Tanaka) plant, while all of the fruit-related discussion should be moved from Mandarin orange to Mandarin orange (fruit). There seems little value in doing so, as there is very little to be said about the plant independent of its fruit, while the species distinction flies in the face of the genomic data that repeatedly has shown the Tanaka's different species simply represent the same mandarin with with different degrees of pomelo hybridization. There should be a single article describing what is currently covered on both pages - they should be Merged. Agricolae (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The creator of the content fork has now moved content from the original page about mandarin oranges to the other page about mandarin oranges - both are pages about the exact same mandarin oranges, and moving the content in no way addresses the problem, it just splits information about the same fruit onto two different pages, or duplicates it. The very fact that one can move this volume of text, unchanged, from one page to the other shows that they are about the same thing. Agricolae (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I should say cause I tried to make both pages more like they should be, but you reverted me. And now I'm writing a short "Biological decription" section for this article. And no, there isn't "very little to be said about the plant independent of its fruit". --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

And why is arbitrarily splitting the information 'like they should be'? We don't have Apple vs. Apple tree - the latter simply redirects to the former, which described both the plant and its fruit. Same for Peach vs. Peach trees. In the citrus, Pomelo tree redirects to Pomelo, while we don't even bother with a redirect for citron tree or kumquot tree, and lemon tree goes to a disambiguation page but we have no separate page for the plant, it just directs to lemon for this usage. There is no reason to do differently here. Agricolae (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, we have two articles: "Apple" vs. "Apple tree" = "Apple" vs. "Malus". And I can immediately name "Orange (fruit)" vs "Orange tree" (the latter is redirected to "Citrus × sinensis"). It is much more convenient like this. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The information is better presented in two separate articles. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  Why? What are we going to say about the tree that isn't relevant to the fruit? a paragraph? That is not enough to justify two pages. As to one of your examples, I don't think Citrus × sinensis should be a separate page either - as it is, it is of abysmal quality, just a list of unverified bullet points. Agricolae (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  There is so much to say. The fruit article is about which species are marketed as mandarines. And about how the fruit is used as food. (They all are used in the same way.) The biological description of the Citrus reticulata tree (its leaves, its flowers) should stay here, in the article about the common mandarin. Especially when there are already separate articles about:
  

  • Citrus reshni (cleopatra mandarin)
  • Citrus tangerina (tangerine)
  • Citrus kinokuni ex Tanaka (cherry orange)
  • Citrus unshiu (satsuma)
  • and many other types whose fruits are all marketed as mandarins and discussed in the article "Mandarin orange (fruit)". --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there are articles on varieties of mandarin and mandarin hybrids, probably too many of them now that we realize the distinctions and groupings are largely arbitrary - that is all the more reason we don't need to split the information further and have an article on the fruit and then another article on the tree from which the fruit was picked. You say the fruit page refers to them "as a food. They are all used in the same way." but they are not all used in the same way - the page lists Cleopatra and Sunki that are used almost exclusively as rootstock. Likewise, the listing of other mandarin hybrids in the transferred material doesn't fit with the topic of the page as you define it (lemons, oranges, etc.), as they are descendants of the species, not of the marketed fruit. Then there is the duplication - every thing that is going to be said said about growth and climate is of necessity exactly the same with regard to the fruit and the tree from which it grows. The mandarin orange page is not so long that we need this separate treatment. Also, in bringing up 'common mandarin' you appear to think that the Mandarin orange article is about a subset of mandarins that are 'common mandarins' but that is neither how it is written nor is such a distinction justified - all these Tanaka 'species names' are used out of convenience to refer to hybrids and varieties of a single biological species. The words 'mandarin orange' in Mandarin orange (fruit) refer to exactly the same subset of citrus as the words 'mandarin orange' in Mandarin orange - C. reticulata and its visibly-similar hybrids. Agricolae (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Botanical distinctions between plants are altogether arbitrary. There are so many articles cause there are many traditional cultivars in Asian countries and in those regions they are usually referred to by their own names.
In short, no, I can't agree with you. I think there must be an article about the fruit and many articles about different species, hybrids, and varieties, and different regional names for them. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

But that is not what we have - the varieties, regional names etc. are irrelevant to the problem that led to this proposed merger. We currently have one article about the species as a whole Mandarin orange (and being predominantly about its fruit) and a separate article about the fruit of the species as a whole Mandarin orange (fruit). You would like to change the first into something different, though what this is confuses me, being some combination of making it about the tree only and not the fruit, but also making it about only a subset of mandarins while still having a name that applies to them all. The latter is unworkable, the former unnecessary. Agricolae (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Merge. The articles are largely duplicate and largely deal with the same subject. Readers should not have to jump back and forth between articles based on whether the information is about the fruit or the tree. That there are "many other types whose fruits are all marketed as mandarins" can be dealt with just as easy in one article as two. —  AjaxSmack  02:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • They are largely duplicate simply because Agricolae reverted me [1] when I tried to move all the parts that are relevant only to the fruit to the article "Mandarin orange (fruit)". The "Nurticion" and "Uses" and etc. sections should be moved there. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That would be an alternative-facts version of why there is duplication. Rather than letting the merger discussion play out, you muddied it by moving material around. I reverted the changes to both pages - so still no duplication (beyond what was created when you made the content fork to begin with). WP:BRD - you were bold, I reverted it, so it was then time to discuss, but you decided to go a different way. You unilaterally restored to the fruit page the text that remained on the other, and that caused the extensive duplication that now exists. Don't pretend the duplication is my fault - I duplicated absolutely nothing. Agricolae (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Merge. For the reasons well said by AjaxSmack. --Zefr (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Merge for now. The deeper problem here is one that's well known in other cultivated plants, namely the disconnect between biological reality as revealed by modern molecular studies, and the naming systems used in different countries. Agricolae wrote above all these Tanaka 'species names' are used out of convenience to refer to hybrids and varieties of a single biological species, but this isn't entirely correct. The true situation seems from the best modern evidence to be as in the diagram at Citrus taxonomy#Genetic history. Citrus reticulata was originally a distinct wild species; "mandarin" seems to be used in English for a set of cultivars commercially available in English speaking countries that are genetically mainly derived from C. reticulata with some input from C. maxima, but in other countries Citrus cultivars may well be grouped differently. When large commercial enterprises produce and sell only a subset of the cultivars available, particularly compared to those available locally in the countries where they were originally developed, the situation can appear simpler than it actually is. For now, the best practical solution seems to be to have articles on major groups of cultivars, of which "mandarins" are one, with separate articles on any individual cultivars or subgroups of cultivars for which enough information is known. Hopefully, at some time in the future, there will be a widely agreed naming system (as exists for cultivated Musa – see List of banana cultivars), which may enable a clearer organization of our articles. It might help to clarify matters if there were a well sourced article at "List of Citrus cultivars". Peter coxhead (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

What we have now is List of citrus fruits, which is neither well sourced nor extensive/anywhere near a complete listing of our citrus pages. Maybe I didn't express myself well in my comment about Tanaka's species names. There are distinct varieties of what in English are called mandarins, ranging from pure through increasing amounts of pomelo hybridization to (and perhaps including, depending on whom you ask) clementines (plus Shekwasha, with its little bit of citron as well). Though Tanaka species names still appear broadly, they split closely related cultivars (e.g. Huanglingmiao and Kishumikan, descended by somatic mutation from the same domesticated backcrossed hybrid) and link less-closely related ones (the hybrid domestic Huanglingmiao with the pure wild Sun Chu Sha) and thus are not a good representation of cultivars, particularly with regard to C. reticulata, which Swingle followers use for all mandarins, while Tanaka's use for an ill-defined and heterogeneous group of 'common mandarins', and it is virtually impossible to sort out which usage is being applied by any given source that doesn't explicitly state it, making a Citrus reticulata page that only reflects so-called 'common mandarins' (as suggested by Moscow Connection) a hopeless muddle. I think the use of the Tanaka species names contributes to making "the situation . . . appear simpler than it actually is". That being said, I agree we should have pages on the varieties and cultivars when there is enough information (some of our current pages fall short of this mark). Likewise, I agree that we should also have a page for the whole group, 'mandarins'. I initiated this merger discussion because we currently have two such pages. Agricolae (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Merge. I just want to point out that we are engaged in debate over whether Mandarin oranges should have one article or two. It's ludicrous. All of the info that those opposed to the merger are touting can easily be included in a subsection of a more comprehensive single article. Why send users to two different articles for the same thing? Iamvered (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Merge. The two articles must be merged. There is no reason to describe the fruits separately from the trees that produce them. The citrus fruits grown for fresh consumption are subdivided into oranges, lemons, mandarins, grapefruits and limes. Other minor groups such as pummelo may also be considered. The name "mandarin" includes a large number of citrus cultivars that produce flat fruits, relatively easy to peel by hand. The article that result from merging the two should address this group in its complexity. This does not mean that articles on each of the subgroups (clementines, satsumas, common mandarins, etc.) can not continue to exist. Amilcarduarte (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Why? Why hasn't this been merged yet??? This discussion was started in March. Who has the ability to change it and why haven't they??? I came here because I saw the two articles, and I thought, "Why does this have two pages???" It's ridiculous. I looked for the talk page under the page issues. Was very glad to see it was being discussed but kind of rolling my eyes because I don't see why anyone would oppose this, or why it hasn't been done yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.97.249 (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2018

Usually, a formal proposal is not enacted until the discussion is formally closed. Since the discussion has gone on longer than the required 30 days, any editor who feels there is an unambiguous consensus is free to carry out a non-administrative closure that ratifies the consensus. (As the proposer, I would prefer to avoid accusations of COI that might come from doing so myself, even though this is permitted in cases of clear consensus.) If someone feels there is some question over consensus, an administrative closure can be requested. Agricolae (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2018 (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.

Tangerine 2

The following discussion 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.

---

Tanaka split tangarines, satsumas, and mandarin oranges on the basis of phenotype (see Citrus taxonomy). New full-genome sequencing suggests that Swingle was right to lump them together. I suggest that we merge all three, with sections giving an explanation, as per Matthewpaulster, but not merge specific notable cultivars, as they are genuine biological entities. HLHJ (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I am ambivalent about this. Satsuma is a distinct cultivar of mandarin with a unique introgression profile from the others, and probably merits its own page like some of the other cultivars. Tangerine (in spite of Tanaka giving it a species name) is sort of a term of convenience that covers a range of mandarin and mandarin-hybrid fruit, and for which there is no clear definition. A better case could be made for merging it. Agricolae (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

What really surprises me is that the term "mandarin orange" is used. When we talk about orange (Citrus sinensis), will we use the term "orange orange"?

Why not just use "mandarin" instead of "mandarin orange"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:7FCC:8400:D7F:7676:6CF8:CC69 (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

There should be articles for the each species, and for the notable cultivars. According to the articles, Mandarin orange is Citrus reticulata, Tangerine is Citrus tangerina, and then there is Citrus unshiu. These are three different species. If they are synonyms then they should be merged. Seems like part of the issue is that common names like 'mandarin orange' and 'tangerine' are applied to more than one species. In that case, the common names should be disambiguation pages or set indices, and separate from the species articles. --Nessie (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Except there is no agreement on the species status of tangerines, or for that matter, any of the mandarins, cultivars and hybrids. The articles are following the Tanaka system, more because the infobox demands a species name and it is more satisfying for Wikipedia editors to give them individual species names, as did Tanaka and those following his system - dozens of species names. Swingle grouped them all into a single species. An analysis from a decade ago grouped them into a handful of species (not including C tangerina). There simply isn't any consensus on species for any citrus. The thing about tangerines, though, is that the name doesn't even refer to a particular cultivar or hybrid, but simply a generic set of characteristics - small, sweet, easy to peel - that apply to any number of genetically-distinct hybrid fruit that have their own species names as well as being classes as tangerines. Thus while the satsuma is a distinct cultivar, the tangerine is not (even though Tanaka gave it a species name). Agricolae (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose merge of Tangerine and Mandarin orange on the grounds that while their genetics overlap, the phenotypic and cultural (including marketing) differences are sufficiently distinct that separate pages are warranted. Given that these fruits are commonly available, the common experience, rather than genetic differences, is important. As long as the pages are well-linked (as I think they are), readers will not miss relevant material. Citrus unshiu is also best kept separate, if for no other reason than it doesn't naturally fall into either camp. Klbrain (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Per reasons above. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose they should be kept separate, my reason World Book Encyclopedia has an article for both and always will.Catfurball (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

No consensus to merge over nearly a year. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:51, 11 October 2019 (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.

A comma between a subject and a verb

"the mandarin, the citron, the pomelo, and to a lesser extent the papedas and kumquat, were the ancestors ..."
Should there be a comma after kumquat? I'm somewhat torn on this.--Adûnâi (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I would say no, as phrased, but were it to say ". . . and the pomelo, and to a lesser extent . . ." then yes as it would then set up the papeda/kumquat phrase as a parenthetical needing to be set off. Agricolae (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Imperial Mandarin

I think it’s a variety, or has it already been covered? Iamthinking2202 (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

If you only think it is a variety, and you aren't sure if it has been covered or not, perhaps we need more information before making any change. Agricolae (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Random chemicals

Yes, biological species are made up of chemicals, but a selective list of them suggests there is some significance to the individual chemicals listed, while a complete list is impossible, non-noteworthy and completely out of perspective. Just because information is verifiable doesn't mean it merits inclusion in an article. Agricolae (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

As a quick follow-up, the policy WP:IAR is being brought out to defend this content. That implies that the addition of random chemicals found in mandarin oranges is an improvement. It is not. Agricolae (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Difference between mandarins, tangerines and oranges

I the article it says mandarins are crossbreeds of mandarins and pomelos (unless they are bitter, but those are not being sold), tangerines are crossbreeds of mandarins and pomelos, and common oranges are crossbreeds of mandarins and pomelos. So what's the difference? Should they all be merged into one article? --185.9.100.7 (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That would mean a merging of all citrus fruits. A crossbreed is, by definition, different from either of the fruits it is a cross of ...and thus should have a separate article. 155.4.221.27 (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)