Talk:Orange (fruit)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Plants (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

Information lacking[edit]

  • Varieties

Other varieties of common oranges: long list, but not even a brief description of some of the varieties. Just where they come from or are cultivated.

History: why is Chinese statement made when there is ZERO facts to support this claim. It is a complete fraud? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.1.216.24 (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the Chinese origin is fairly well-documented, though I don't have my copy of Oranges by John McPhee handy right now. Reify-tech (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hamlin: the book used for referencing (Webber, Herbert John, rev Walter Reuther and Harry W. Lawton, Willard Hodgson (1967–1989) [1943]. The Citrus Industry, Horticultural Varieties of Citrus [1]) is from 1989. Out-of-date info, perhaps? It is not out of date as to the origins of the Hamlin variety, as that has not changed.

  • Scope: Mainly mentions of US and Brazil cultivars. What about the rest of the world? The US and Brazil produce +90% of the world's commercial orange juice, and so most knowledge databases relate to production in Brazil and Florida. Varieties in California, Mexico and other states in Central America mirror those of Brazil and Florida.

I'm no expert, just a humble copy-editor. --Cocolacoste (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Nutritional value

I've just come across this FAO page about the nutritional and health benefits of citrus fruits ([2]). It could be useful for expanding this section. --CocoLacoste talk 02:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Flavonoids in the rind, core, or stem?[edit]

Where in an Orange is the greatest amount of flavonoid located? Is it found mostly in the white core, rind, stem, or meat (flesh)? It was my understanding that the whitish core was where most of the flavonoids were found. I was of the understanding that flavonoids are found mostly in the white parts of the orange. That is, just under the skin. Or is it distributed equally through the fruit of the orange? Does a ripe orange have more flavonoids than one that is not ripe? Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

  • We are focused here on improving the Wikipedia article on orange (fruit), rather than discussing the fruit. You may want to look at Web sites focused on nutrition, and/or vitamins for this type of information. Also, you may want to read this. Dwpaul Talk 02:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

RM[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

– I think we have a primary topic here. Check out the grok.se pageviews ... 73074 for Orange (fruit), versus just 28827 for Orange (colour). There are some other uses but nothing that rises even to the level of the colo(u)r. We have ten THOUSAND views a month of the disambiguation page. Lots of people arriving here instead of the article they want. It's probably the fruit, according to our pageview statistics. (Keep in mind that we'd of course keep the hatnote on top of the fruit page that takes readers directly to the colour article, providing minimal inconvenience.) Red Slash 04:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose on grounds of "long-term significance". IMO, both are equally, elementary, core, vital subjects that everybody learns since practically as toddlers (or even early), and I do not feel that such recentism and page views with only a difference of under 50,000 views is enough to offset that (similar to how I feel with the mercury articles). If it were over a million difference, I might have a different opinion but not under 50,000. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Weakly oppose. The numbers Red Slash cites for fruit versus colour are not all that far apart, not different enough to convince me that people typing orange are more likely to mean the fruit than anything else. For what it's worth, I often police incoming links to the DAB page, and those most often seem to mean the colour or the French telecomm. I don't take that to mean, however, that either of those is the primary topic. They just happen to be things that novice editors have frequent occasion to mention. Cnilep (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am not a fan of using page reads to justify a move. They are better used to show why a page should not be moved. Also the case presented makes it look like we only have two pages about something called orange and that is simply false. There are too many pages that use the name to say that one meets the requirements to be the primary topic. For me the color is clearly a contender and between that on the fruit there probably is not a primary topic. Add in everything else, and the current arrangement is really the right choice. Also the primary move here is of the dab page so that should have been the primary nomination so that we have a more balanced discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per WP:CRITERIA 1 & 3. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think the fruit is significant enough to warrant primary usage. As can be seen on the disambig page, the word can also refer to the colour of the fruit, or a medieval place and/or family name. JIP | Talk 10:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose on grounds similar to those expressed by Vegaswikian. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose it seems confusion on getting these articles without issues on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ApprenticeFan work 11:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Potential Health Risks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.109.6.2 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Oranges by John McPhee[edit]

This book is a well-written, interesting treatment of many aspects of the fruit. Wikipedia says that John McPhee is "an American writer, widely considered one of the pioneers of creative nonfiction". He is widely respected for his engaging writing style, while still thoroughly researching his subjects. The book, written in 1967, is still a classic though a few things likely have changed since then. It is noteworthy enough that I may dig up some reviews and add a brief mention of it to the article. Reify-tech (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"Orange"[edit]

The usage and topic of "Orange" is under discussion, see Talk:Orange (word) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)