Talk:Plum/Archive 1

Archive 1

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 23:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

laxative

Why do prunes have laxative qualities? Chris 19:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What quantity of plums, prunes, or prune juice are generally required to have a significant laxative effect?-69.87.200.164 16:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

suggest merge from prune

It's the same fruit, in different stages, merge. Chris 07:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Chipotle is separate from Chili pepper, for example, so I would keep them separate. Prune juice is common, for example, but plum juice is not. --Diogenes00 22:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong Don't Merge You wouldn't merge cucumber and pickled cucumber, would you? What about grape and raisin? No. None of these are anywhere close to "obscure" in the english language. If Prune and Plum were longer and more detailed, you wouldn't even suggest it. Therefore, they must be lengthened, a noble quest which falls into my own hands. I MUST SAVE THE PRUNES!!! --Scharb 04:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As Diogenes00 and Scharb said, food derivatives that are significantly different should have their own article. Another example would be popcorn. Kborer 15:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't Merge!!! In my opinion, plums and prunes are two very different things. They have different qualities, uses and apperances. I really think this article must be lengthened, and that they need to stay seperate. Greenboxed 18:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Don't Merge. Although they start as the same fruit, the end product is totally different. As the article says, prunes are the dried plums which easily separate from the seed. Plums as you know them cling to their seed. Lantrix 10:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A consensus should come together on this merge, if one is not reached the tag should be removed as it has been up for quite some time now and serves little purpose but confusion if up for this long. If no consensus is made in the next couple days I am going to go ahead and remove it. --Christopher Tanner, CCC 15:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As the Don't Merges out number the merges, I am going to remove the merge heading from these two pages.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 16:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Greengages

Greengages???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.164.71 (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for further information

I came here looking for an explanation on why some plums appear "dusty". Could someone more knowledgeable than I add that please? Jmi11s 21:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Glaucous? Mgiganteus1 21:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Main picture

The current picture at the top of the page is overexposed and frankly a worse picture than the one further down the page. The two should have their places on the page switched. 65.11.150.126 (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

not common knowledge

It is not commonly known that a prune and a plum are even related. Someone will come to look and see what the origins of a prune is, without knowing it comes from the plum. And, well stated, a grape and a raisin are seen entirely different. It holds different attributes and tastes when dried out. They should remain seperate.

True. They have the same origin, but they're distinct items with different uses, like cucumbers and pickles. KenFehling (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence it's not commonly known. IMHO it's just as well known as the connection between grapes and raisins Nil Einne (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Pit releases cyanide

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/193/are-apricot-seeds-poisonous This is noteworthy i think? I'll try to write up a section. I'll see if i can rip it from another fruit article. ExtremeSquared (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ripped a section from Peach and cited. ExtremeSquared (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Salty plum snacks

More could be said about these, I hope someone can add some information, such as about regions other than China where they are popular. Is Salaito a Spanish word? Nadiatalent (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Focus

This article focuses more on the fruit rather than the tree instead (even the species only redirect you back). It is because it is first mentioned that the article plum is a common tyoe of tree. Can anyone improve this vital matter? Dar book (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

yguohj uih h7gt des 9h —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.176.202.140 (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Skin is Tart

There should be more content about the skin and taste.

The skin often has a strong tart taste. Also the flesh around the pit has a tart taste. Sometimes all of the flesh has quite a tart taste, even when the fruit is fairly mature. So the article is wrong to just call the fruit sweet and not mention tart.

What are the nutritional characteristics of the skin? -96.237.0.25 (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

er0-go0-erv trg ke g re j 904 43 jut034 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.176.202.140 (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Mesopotamian origin?

Why is there no reference for this claim: "Other historians point that Mesopotamia as a clue to the Latin name. Apricots were cultivated in Mesopotamia, and it was known as armanu in the Akkadian language." ? If it's not supported by credible sources then there is no reason for making this statement! Also, the sentence contains grammatical flaws. I will not change anything but people who do have the authority, should! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.241.39 (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sloe?

Near as I can tell from the article, "sloe" is an alternate name for a single species/variety of plum. Yet the name appears again as "plums and sloe" under production, and likewise in the production table heading. Why is sloe being given an elevated status, when apricot (or other variety) is not? Is it because the sloe is China's number one export? Is it "the UKs favorite" -- what?! Please consider removing sloe as an expansion of "plum" OR provide enhanced narrative explaining why sloe is sufficiently significant to receive such elevated reference. Thanks. Parradoxx (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it accurate to equal plum to Subgenus Prunus?

According to the classification, Subgenus Prunus includes species like apricot and plum, that is, plum should refer to several related species of Prunus like we use the term traditionally, it neither equal to the entire subgenus or a single species of plum in it. It also worth to mention that in the Chinese language apricot(杏) and plum(李) are distiguished too, it might also be true in other culture. So IMHO the classification of this term need to be updated and also the links to other languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctg60 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Difference between plum and prune.

The plum article reads:

"Dried plum fruits are called dried plums or prunes, although prunes are a distinct type of plum"

Then I read the prune article which says:

"A prune is any of various plum species"

So, what is the truth on this matter. Or are these words just synonyms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.9.64 (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the Prune page to read "any of various plum cultivars". An important point on the page is that prunes generally have a stone that releases freely (and they are usually more or less elongate in shape). Nadiatalent (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, for the lack of a decent source but someone called WISE OWL on yahoo answers explains how we got the words 'prune' 'plum'. Could I be right in thinking that separating the two is sort of artificial, if prunes became the word for dried plums because a fresh prune has particular qualities that lend it towards being dried that other plum cultivars don't have e.g. the stone is easily removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by C'estmoi3456 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Linking to other languages

I can't get the English language article on plums to link to italian Prunus Domestica because that article is already linked to English Prunus Domesticus (the species, the tree and the fruit it produces are all on the same page in Italian) and I can't ask them to split the articles up over there because my Italian isn't very good. Is anyone else able to do this?C'estmoi3456 (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It is well known that "plum" in inherited from Old English (Anglo-Saxon) and did not come into English from Dutch.

If you insist upon a source, here is one:

https://www.etymonline.com/word/plum

As stated, this is an "early Germanic borrowing" from Latin.

Furthermore, linguists reconstruct that early borrowing as Proto-West-Germanic *plūmā.

I am surprised that my edit was reverted. The fact that the word has existed in the English language long before Middle Dutch even came about ought to have disqualified it immediately.

Are Wikipedians wont to use shabby sources? 70.188.165.229 (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

IP, the article currently says "The name plum derived from Old English plume or "plum, plum tree," which extended from Germanic language or Middle Dutch, and Latin prūnum", what's your point ? adding "early Germanic borrowing" ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The middle Dutch bit, is what I think they are objecting to. One ref is to the online Oxford, an erratic site at best, and its entry on 'prune'. My deadtree OED doesn't mention dutch, rather high and low German and Old Norse. ~ cygnis insignis 19:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

plum

plum 117.18.230.132 (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)