Talk:Orange (fruit)

Facts in lead not in article

There's a few items found in the lead that don't occur in the article:

• "As of 1987, orange trees were found to be the most often cultivated fruit tree in the world."
  • Removed.
• "Orange trees are widely grown in tropical and subtropical climates for their sweet fruit." the words "tropical" and "subtropical" do not appear in the article text.
  • Removed the adjectives.
• "Oranges have featured in human culture since medieval times." word "medieval" does not appear in article text. Start sentence of "In human culture" says "Oranges have featured in human culture since ancient times." Esculenta (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Edited.

Of interest: orange peels could improve heart health

This does not meet WP:MEDRS because it is a single study. Once it does appear in a Systematic review it can be mentioned in the article.

• "New Research Reveals That Adding Orange Peels to Your Diet Could Improve Heart Health". SciTechDaily. 2024-06-03. Retrieved 2024-06-04.
• Lee, Hana; et al. (2024-04-10). "Discovery of a Novel Bioactive Compound in Orange Peel Polar Fraction on the Inhibition of Trimethylamine and Trimethylamine N -Oxide through Metabolomics Approaches and In Vitro and In Vivo Assays: Feruloylputrescine Inhibits Trimethylamine via Suppressing cntA/B Enzyme". Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 72 (14): 7870–7881. doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.3c09005. ISSN 0021-8561.

Peaceray (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, WP:TOOSOON. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Do we need two articles?

While the disambiguator in this title is "fruit", the article contains much about the tree, so I wonder if we really need the separate Citrus × sinensis article, which, when the copious images are removed, is actually pretty stubby. And since all Citrus × sinensis trees are sweet orange trees (being they're an artificially selected hybrid that only exists because ancient people liked the fruit and blossoms), there's no distinctive botanical overarching to be concerned with. It comes off as redundant efforts for no benefit to the reader. (For that matter, orange blossom is literally one under-sourced paragraph with a couple of stray sentences, one entirely unsourced (the gallery of things other than actual orange blossoms was removed) and it should be merged as well. oknazevad (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. In reply, one might ask "Which two articles?" as there are several involved. The disambiguator is to separate the horticultural orange from the colour orange, the Dutch royal family, and suchlike things. If you look at the article's 'Hybrid origins' section, among others, you'll see that the article covers 'orange' more widely, not exactly limited to Citrus x sinensis though that's the, um, core of the botanical side of things. Given the mass of orange-coloured citrus fruits nowadays, from the tiniest mandarins to full-sized Jaffas with every imaginable variant in between including Type 2 and Type 3 Mandarins (which aren't Citrus reticulata like Type 1s, but complex hybrids), the fruit as commonly understood has a considerably wider remit than the single hybrid you suggest, and may indeed encompass the Bitter or Seville orange, Citrus x aurantium. So, no, this article is about oranges as commonly understood, and the botanical articles focus instead on specific hybrids or species. It seems a fair and very comprehensible distinction. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Why did you bring up the color article? It's obviously not what I'm talking about. Total non-sequitur and not relevant.

As for the actual fruit, this article is in the whole about sweet oranges, not about the wider remit, as it says in the lead and elaborates upon throughout. The scope of this article is quite clear and specific. The "Hybrid origins" section, the ensuing history, the nutrition and taste section, all about sweet oranges exclusively. The other types of oranges are mentioned in passing at most, and readers are directed to the separate articles. Notably the bitter orange is explicitly contrasted and linked in the very first sentence. (And also notably there is one article for that variety, to which the botanical name is a redirect, not a separate article.)

I see your response and I have to wonder if you have actually read the article. Or, based on the pointless color digression, my actual comment to be frank. oknazevad (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• On the contrary, you mentioned the "disambiguator", so I stated what was being disambiguated, which is nothing to do with other species or hybrids: certainly relevant.
• Well, both yes and no, unfortunately. The bitter orange is contrasted in the lead, perhaps partly incorrectly; the article text I think correctly mentions it, for example under Marmalade, which people commonly call "orange" rather than "bitter orange", so I've tweaked the lead very slightly to reflect this. The point I'm making here is that the extension of "orange" is not strictly botanical (most folks neither know nor care when using the term), so an attempt to force this article into a strict botanical straitjacket would simply be a mistake.

That is a personal attack. You should know better; please stop at once. Civility is mandatory. You're also wrong, but I hardly feel like responding to rudeness. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, but I felt your initial response was dismissive and didn't address my points, so it rankled. Let's move on from that.

Also, please do not insert your responses into my comments. It causes material I did not write to appear above my signature. The talk page guideline specifically says not to do that.

As for the content, I don't think I'm calling for a strict botanical straitjacket, just a more wholistic understanding of the article scope based on the bulk of its existing content. The presence of one section on marmalade being made from bitter oranges doesn't outweigh the rest of the article's material being almost entirely about sweet oranges. Notably, the cultivar section doesn't mention bitter oranges at all. The adjustments you made to the lead aren't really supported by the body, either.

Perhaps the scope issue would best be addressed by moving this article to sweet orange, which already redirects here. That "orange" can be used to describe other citrus hybrids with mandarin ancestry is covered by the list of plants known as orange (though that list could use an audit and probably would be better as a more filled out set-index article describing the relations briefly). Or maybe we should split this article to put the sweet orange-specific material at that title and make this title into more of a set-index article. I'm just spitballing here.

To be clear, though, the purpose of my original comment was that the Citrus × sinensis feels like a unneeded content fork from the material specifically about sweet oranges, and since this is the article about sweet oranges I think it should probably just redirect here. oknazevad (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)