Talk:Sugar apple

On 14 March 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Sugar-apple to Sugar apple. The result of the discussion was moved.

Untitled

Could someone provide specifics on what parts are to be eaten? Foreigners are unaware of this. I've heard unsubstantiated rumours that the skin and seeds are to be avoided. You open the fruit up and only eat the white insides, the large black seeds and skin are inedible. Its quite sweet inside. Cheers, Stromasher24

I don't know how much this fruit is like the cherimoya, but the seeds of that fruit are poisonous according to it's wikipedia article. --62.45.26.246 18:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Ricardo Carneiro Pires 17:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Maldive native

Flora of Maldives page staes quite clearly that it is for plants growing as natives. This species is not native to the Maldives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ethel Aardvark (talk • contribs) 22:55, 13 June 2007.

We need facts!

This page needs interesting facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realledi51 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - all the more reason to merge it with Annona squamosa Roy Bateman (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

history

Any history on this fruit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realledi51 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Remove tag as no one had commented on merge proposal since April 2008. Please feel to re-nominate. Please add any other nominations to Food and drink page.

Merge Annona squamosa into Sugar-apple. As with Banana or Peach, one article discussing the growth and fruit of this plant is sufficient. No consensus was sought nor obtained for a split into two separate articles about this plant and the length of the article is not so great that such a split was necessary. Illogical and confusing POV forks without consensus at the page's talk page must not be permitted without discussion and consensus. Badagnani (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was not to merge.--Tealwisp (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Annona squamosa. Common English name; illogical to have two separate articles on the very same species, as we do not have separate articles for Peach and Prunus persica. Badagnani (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; the distinction between plant taxon and plant product is sound. Hesperian 05:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See WP:NC (flora), as the two articles cover not the species, but the species as a botanical subject and its fruit as a food, respectively. Tealwisp (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

sugar apple =?= custard apple

The opening statement: In some regions of the world, the sugar-apple is also known as custard-apple, a different plant in the same genus. is a contradiction. What did the writer mean to say here? Rp (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What this means, is that this fruit is called custard-apple in some regions, but the name custard-apple is used for a different kind of fruit in other places.Wendy.krieger (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slime molds?

There was one time I visited Thailand and saw these weird, small, white blob-like things crawling all over every one of these fruits, even the ones sold at supermarkets there. Does anybody know what they are, where they came from, or what they're doing on them? They kind of remind me of slime molds, but I don't know if they really are or not. (They can be rinsed away with water, and they only stay on the surface of the fruit--they're not present on anywhere else on the tree, nor did they even crawl onto the packaging in markets.) Ron Stoppable (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the description I'm guessing they were some kind of of mealy bug. Pouletic (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sugar apple with cross section.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sugar apple with cross section.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 12, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-09-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 16:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

A sugar-apple and the cross-section of another. The sugar-apple is the fruit of the Annona squamosa plant. It is usually round, slightly pine cone-like, 6–10 cm (2.4–3.9 in) in diameter and weighing 100–230 g (3.5–8.1 oz), with a scaly or lumpy skin. The flesh is sweet, white to light yellow, and resembles and tastes like custard. The edible portion coats the seeds generously and has a texture a bit like the center of a very ripe guava.Photo: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Archive – More featured pictures...

Sugar-Apple / Annona squamosa

Back in 2008 a merge proposal for these 2 articles was rejected on the grounds that the economic fruit deserved one article, the botanical species another. Fair enough, perhaps. But today, the two articles have substantial overlap - the Sugar-Apple article for example talks about the semi-evergreen shrub with very detailed measurements of the leaves and flowers, which you might think better suited for a botanical article on the species of plant rather than one on the fruit; leaving aside the obvious point that they are the same species of plant.

Do the articles need clearer separation? Merging, pace the old proposal? Or neither? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biology

What's it's life span? What's it's pollinator? What distributes it's seeds? ETC ETC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.72.160 (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sugar-apple

One of the names of it in India is Persian by origin: shareefa (sarifa), also known as sitafal in some parts of india. Possibly it was known in Asia before its discovery in South America. It is still common in India, but very seasonal, to be had for a very short time only during summer monsoon, thus a little expensive, too. Eaten can be the thin soft white skin of the black kernels from inside the fruit, sometimes tiny hard sugary-starchy pieces stick to that, which can be eaten too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.4.118.90 (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC) The photograph seems to show an unripe exemplar of the species. Usually no cuts are needed, since each of the kernels has its own green part, thus can be plucked individually after a little pressure on the outside which makes the apple burst open. The squamosa is not the same as the cherimoya, though they both go as custard-apple.[reply]

2013 merge proposal

There's a notice that a merge proposal was made in 2013 but no section in the discussion page about it.

The proposal has been made twice before and voted down based on the wikipedia guidelines that the fruit and botanical species can be treated as a separate subject. That's how i would vote on the matter, especially considering the regional ambiguity about what constitutes a sugar apple, but i do agree with the comment made that there is overlap in the two articles and suggest they be excised of unnecessarily redundant material and made to reference one another in a way that discourages recurrence. If merge proposal fails, I will make some efforts to that end. Pouletic (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the idea of having two articles, one about the fruit and one about the plant, but the current status doesn't seem to make a good distinction between the two. I agree with you that there is currently too much overlap between the two articles (and that's presumably the reason for the merge proposals). You have my support for any effort you want to make to disentangle the two topics. Deli nk (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have excised most of the material on the sugar-apple page that is not specific to the fruit itself. Content that was not redundant and also reasonably well cited was moved to the Annona squamosa page. I removed the merge proposal template from both pages. There is still room for refinement in both pages, but the major surgery has been done. I hope i didn't step on too many toes. Much of the content was anecdotal, anyway. Note that the paragraph about atemoya should probably be dealt with somehow: i didn't touch it. Pouletic (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature

The nomenclature section is unencyclopedic and reads like a direct lift from Wiktionary. This is also the case for some other culinary plant articles on Wikipedia, for some reason those that have relevance to India and its surrounds (similar long lists of terms in non-English languages exist on the pages for Jackfruit, Carambola, Tamarind, Cardamom, Ginger, and Galangal). Unless there are very good reasons for keeping these sections as they are, I propose they should be relegated to Wiktionary, where such lists can be dealt with much more easily. Thefamouseccles (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Custard pear" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Custard pear and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 4#Custard pear until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous merge proposals

Back in April 2008, there was a merge proposal that passed as "Merge" this article with Annona squamosa. Then for some reason, even though it passed, a second merge proposal was made that failed. This same proposal took place on the Annona squamosa page with the same results, but only because the same people voted on it, and the one that passed was the one that took place first. There is an additional request for the articles to be merged at the Annona squamosa page, so that could count as a vote for merge anyway, causing that proposal to be a "Merge" result as well.

It is correct to merge these two articles. Take Coconut for example -- the plant/tree, the fruit, and the seed all redirect to a single page. The same can be said for Peach, Apple, Banana, Pineapple, Blueberry, Strawberry, Carrot, Turnip, Potato, Watermelon, Tomato, Cucumber, etc. and I can go on and on. Orange is an example of an exception -- this is because orange is a general term for various types of citrus fruits from various types of trees, e.g. there are sweet oranges, bitter oranges, blood oranges, etc. Cherry is another exception because there are sweet cherries, black cherries, etc. Sugar-apple does not fall into the category of exceptions to this rule because it only relates to one plant: Annona squamosa. Other plants/fruits in this genus have entirely different names, e,g, Cherimoya and Soursop, which both have their fruits and trees combined in the same articles.

Instead of making a new merge proposal, I am pretty sure we should just go ahead and accept the first merge proposal from 2008 as "passed" and complete the merge. As long as I don't receive any opposition, or I receive support, I can complete this merge for us, or someone else can if they'd like.

Unlike Sugar apple, Custard apple can refer to fruits of more than one type of plant, and therefore that page should be left as is. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar-apple → Sugar apple – Sugar apple is the WP:COMMONNAME. Hyphens generally aren't used in nouns like this, only in adjectives. LightProof1995 (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). LightProof1995 (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 15:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC) A quick Google search of "Sugar-apple or sugar apple?" reveals "Sugar apple" to be the WP:COMMONNAME. LightProof1995 (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:COMMONNAME based on the Google Ngrams. Also, Webster's dictionary, Dictionary.com, and TheFreeDictionary all list it as "sugar apple" without a hyphen. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Both forms are found in the article's sources, and when I search online, I don't see the proposed title as more common (the ngrams are likely misleading: Google Books results are swamped with false positives). LightProof1995, the use of hyphens you're referring to concerns adjectives like "centuries-old", but they're not relevant here. The convention used in this case is common in the literature about organisms. The principle is: use "A B" if A B is a form of B (e.g. Bellflower apple, which is a cultivar of apple), but A-B otherwise (a sugar-apple is completely different from apples). This conventions isn't universally followed on Wikipedia, but it's helpful in deciding edge cases like this one. – Uanfala (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is cool and I didn't know that so thanks for sharing. However, this doesn't match custard apple. If what you say is true, and we leave this as sugar-apple, that page would need to be renamed to custard-apple. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a lot of the same considerations apply to custard apple. – Uanfala (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems that both versions are used frequently as noted by a simple search above and a quick glance at two botanical databases [1] [2]. So not sure how much WP:COMMONNAME is applicable here. But per WP:CRITERIA point #5, Sugar apple would be the most WP:CONSISTENT to other similar articles' titles such as custard apple. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, User:Eucalyptusmint says it well. Botanical databases should always be used to support plant common names. In this case, where some databases e.g. GRIN use a hyphenated form and some e.g. USDA are unhyphenated, the more natural form (unhyphenated) should be favoured (WP:CRITERIA again). Declangi (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Food and drink has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 15:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Plants has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 15:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisting to seek participation, it should be noted that the nom is indef. blocked and will be unable to reply, but not blocked for any reason that should invalidate their previous comments, from what I can tell. ASUKITE 15:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Eucalyptusmint. Silikonz💬 00:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.