Talk:Annona

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anon is not a valid wikilink[edit]

Is this part of some kind of reorganization? If so, can we discuss it here first? All your links beginning with "anon#" are going to the wiki page for "Anonymous". They all need to be fixed. --Mmm (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed at a few locations, perhaps the discussion is most suited to reside at wikiplants project. About the links with anon#, an obvious typo. As the fact exists that anyone can edit a wikipage, should you be thanked for pointing that out? -- carol (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without knowing the intent, it is not clear what the correct fix is. Where are they supposed to link? Can you give a pointer to a description of the plan? --Mmm (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am fixing the link. Anona is where they are going; the common name which seems to be shared for all of these fruits by the Spanish and Portuguese people who live where they grow natively and an article which needs attention as well. And thank you for pointing out a vandalism!! -- carol (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Anona" or "Anon" is not a valid page name. The page should be under the actual correct species name Annona. Further, this is the English Wikipedia and we do not title pages under names such as "Anona" which are used only in foreign languages. Badagnani (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but "anona" is not the common name of all these species. Spanish has different names for them as well. They are different species, and each species has its own name. Again, can someone point to a discussion where this article naming convention is discussed? If there needs to be a change, it seems rational to have the main article name be the binomial name (e.g. Annona reticulata). That vastly is preferable to moving these articles to sub-sections of an article on a non-English word, especially given that Anona currently just points back to Annona. --Mmm (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish and portugese word for a spanish and portugese fruit (when did guava become a word? before or after it was eaten in English speaking locations?) and it is a troll who is breaking rules and (I guess) expressing his or her manliness by being aggressive to a nice girl. Yay for the new millennia and this new generation! And do go share your rationalization with the wikiplant people -- the actual concensus was there. This is trolling here. -- carol (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
carol@bread:$ dict anona
1 definition found

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:

  Anona \A*no"na\, n. [NL. Cf. {Ananas}.] (Bot.)
     A genus of tropical or subtropical plants of the natural
     order {Anonace[ae]}, including the soursop.
     [1913 Webster]

QED -- carol (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that is an old, alternate name for the genus Annona. According to WP:PLANTS#Plant_article_naming_conventions the article name for each species should be the binomial name Genus species, exactly as I said above. So rather than having each common name redirect to anona#species, it seems better to rename the article to "Genus species", then redirect Cherimoya, for example, to Annona cherimola. For what it's worth, I don't even know that you are a girl; sorry for offending you if I did. And how do you know I am not a nice girl from the old generation? :-) I don't think anyone in this discussion is a troll. In my case I just want to do the right thing vis-a-vis the articles. --Mmm (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The right thing (I think) is to not revert articles with well cited content and to discuss this at wiki plant project. Applying a mouse or keyboard to a link that says [undo] is not work and it is not being done very thoughtfully. The pasting of the text written by others has been painful as it seemed unorganized, condescending in tone and was uncited. In almost every list of common names for every edible fruit, the word anona was used as a common name by Spanish speaking and Portuguese speaking people who lived where the trees exist natively; and you do not have to believe me about this, you can look it up yourself or revert the articles back to the ones that have the links that show it. It is a good name to put all the fruits as and to have photographs and descriptions in the same article is to me, as a consumer very interesting and helpful. Separate articles about the species is also interesting, but not to me as a consumer; it is interesting to me as someone who is curious about the world and the way it is being redefined and recatagorized in the name of science and by nifty new tools and observation techniques -- all stuff that I don't want to sift through while trying to determine what this new fruit I just bought is. And the old stuff is interesting as well; I am quite curious about who did the work for all of those botanists whose names got the credit -- science and history are interesting together but not on a shopping list and not for general how to grow this information. In my years as a gardener, I did not want to dig information that I needed like that out of the other stuff.

on communication, citation and insightation[edit]

All of this reverting and illogical reasoning and the aggressive behavior has the smell, look and feel of an old & stupid war and a path well travelled, hence the trolling accusation. I am saddened and deeply curious about a world that has evolved to the place where a suggestion like, "Why don't you clean up the Annona family?" can't be made without the guise of trickster or mastermind or manipulator supreme being used. Are attention spans so deficit and egos so fragile that they need such crutches? Well, mine isn't, but about others who are involved here and elsewhere. My sense of personal pride really needs to say that it would have been easier and better just to suggest "Why don't you clean up the Annona family?" And this is so much more fun than anything else that is available to do, including the extremely stupid television that is here with its direct satellite and its fill in the blanks programming. There is nothing more disinteresting than watching adlebrained manipulation of a medium that used to actually have entertaining and insightful content. -- carol (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reorg plan[edit]

I think we agree that the guidelines at WP:PLANTS#Plant_article_naming_conventions are good. Given that, we should do the following:

  • Rename any articles with common names (such as Cherimoya) to the name of "Genus species" (Annona cherimola, in this case).
  • Create redirect pages for the common names to point to the "Genus species" articles.

It sounds perfectly reasonable to create a page which has pictures and descriptions of common, edible Annona species, but the main article for each species should be named after the scientific name of that species, as per the wikiplants guidelines. As to what name to use for an article on the species of Annona that consumers are likely to run into, "Anona" doesn't quite sound right, since it is really just a synonym for Annona. Maybe a name like "Commercially important Annona species" would be better. And there could be a link to that at the top of the "Annona" article. How does that sound? --Mmm (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was what I was doing but that was reverted. My next approach was to make separate articles about the consumer product, the fruits (mostly) in this case and the species -- less than 20 of 1300 species have common names and those 20 have several common names. It makes sense to me to have an article for the fruit and an article for the species. A consumer item is its own thing. Rubber for instance. Doesn't rubber come from a plant? To write a species article that is also about the product rubber is too diverse to be useful, not using the software and perhaps making ignorant and illogical choices here to fit a format (perhaps) for a commercial web site that has yet to pay me to do ignorant and illogical things here (dictionary.com).
There was a suggestion at wiki plants project that there is a feeling for the need for a long article -- that is one of the reasons I am putting the fruits all in one article. It is one person who is making the reverts and demanding discussion. The discussion took place in three places now I think already and only one person is in favor of the reverts that that person makes. I am finishing the article for Anona -- instead of reverting it, it should be split into the fruit articles. That spam on the species articles about merging should be removed and the fruit articles and the species article should politely link to each other.
If there is a reason that 20 articles out of 1300 need to have a special name that is not for a commercial web site somewhere, I would be interested to know that reason. Other than that, the separate fruit article and species article is a great solution -- the articles fall under different projects and have different categories and (here is the clincher) different information.
Oh, and the opinion from the people who are actually doing the work and not just imposing their desires by making thoughtless reversions -- you just read it. That person is trying to collect information which is not just reworded spew from that one paper from purdue (almost everything online about these fruits is that) and also attempting to write articles that do not talk down to what should be a relatively intelligent audience. Thank you for your attention and research. -- carol (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose splitting individual species articles into two articles per species. We do not have separate articles for Peach and Prunus persica and should not have separate articles for Cherimoya and Annona cherimola, as the editor above attempted to do, without consensus. Wikipedia also utilizes, as article titles, common names where they are widely used, such as in the case of Apple, Sugar-apple, or Peach. Badagnani (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support positive edits by Mgiganteus1
  • Support positive edits by Hesperian
  • Support 5 other contributors here
  • Support 5 other contributors here
  • Support 5 other contributors here
  • Support 5 other contributors here
  • Support 5 other contributors here
  • Support -- the consensus 08:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support everyone I spoke with about this who was in my bathroom which contained every person whose 'vote' I care about at the time of the polling. -- carol (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- the 1993 species that don't have a common name who are also considered to be custard apples. ["Annona". Integrated Taxonomic Information System. 2008-04-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help)] -- carol (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to want to build an empire of wrong. What is the logic that We use to build this? Also, for articles about species of plants, the vote is at wiki plant projects, please cast your vote there. This article is probably not being watched by people who are actually authoring articles for other species. Do we have a problem with that? -- carol (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

A description of how the fruit is eaten and what it tastes like would be good. Are tehre other culinary uses besides eating it fresh? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Annona. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Annona. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annona&oldid=1198778349"