Talk:Celery/Archive 1

Agropyro-rumicion-plant

Does anyone know what this means? It would be great if there was some explanation because a quick google didn't turn up anything immediately obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.172.189.88 (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory information = vandalism?

The following sentence: "In an episode of Food Detectives they proved that celery does have "negative calories", but not effective for weight loss (nor healthy)." But the cited article claims the EXACT opposite! This could be the anti-celery diet brigade at work. I am changing the sentence to: "In an episode of Food Detectives they proved that celery does not have "negative calories", but states that one would lose weight if one only consumed celery." --HillbillyProfane (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussions

hey it looks like there's also some vandalism in the "nutrition" section who has a beef with celery-Dougmwpsu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.101.131 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's some vandalism in the "cultivation and uses" section. I think there's an unvandalized version four edits ago but I don't know how to revert pages.

It appears that someone else cleaned it up, already. --Mdwyer 06:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-science witch remedies enunciated as fact. Not to mention the appalling, rambling sentence structures. Any objections to my rewriting this?

Umm, go ahead ZPS102 23:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, anyone know how to make old, limp celery crispy again?

Submerge it in ice water for several minutes. --Mdwyer 04:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Negative Calories

I've read that celery contains negative calories. Is there any truth to that statement? Craig Sniffen 07:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semi, it just means that your burn more calories eating it than celery has. alfrin 05:30, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Can I get any verification on the subject? I'm not sure if it's any more than an urban myth. Craig Sniffen 17:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to Snopes it's true, not because celery has any particular lack of calories but because the human digestive system is unable to break down cellulose in the plant Graphia 08:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It took almost half a year but it was worth it. I can't believe I never checked Snopes. >_< I'm adding it to the article just in case some other crazy person needs to find the answer and doesn't check the talk page. EDIT: Opps, it was already there. I moved it to under food, as that's more intuitive and the section looked kind of odd anyways with such a short first paragraph. Craig Sniffen 23:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It fits better there than in trivia. Anonymous

I'm not sure "Snopes believes this to be true" sounds very encyclopedic. Snopes is, after all, not a primary source. --Rob* (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page, [[1]] the 'negative calorie' thing is a myth Anonymous

Actually, I read that page as saying that the effect would be negligable either way, so it doesn't matter if it is a myth or not. The article doesn't actually prove or disprove anything.

BozMo removed the negative calorie myth from the Food Uses section. I have put it back, edited, under Trivia. Personally, I think we need to fight mythology with facts -- not with deletion. The fact that it is talked about so much HERE suggests that it is a question that many people have, and it would be good to have it answered. --Mdwyer 19:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all well and nice that celery is considered part of the Negative Calorie diet, but the diet is represented on Wikipedia as being criticized based on unsound science. Either way, it's certainly not completely accepted. Beyond that, celery's probably also part of any diet you could get from Jenny Craig, but that's not represented here, and Jenny Craig's much more well known, I'm sure. Seems like an irrelevant factoid, so I took it out. <spetz>.216.175.188.98 21:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School Experiments

Should this be included in the main article?

Celery is ideal for an experiment showing how vascular plants transport water. The bottom of the stalk is split, and placed in two separate dishes of water to which different food colorings have been added to. The colors can be seen to rise up the xylem of the plant and eventually reach the leaves. --Mdwyer 04:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 71.199.123.24 07:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good. Now did I get it right? It has been a few years since my botany courses... --Mdwyer 02:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's "baked potato cuisine"?

The first subsection begins: Celery is a very popular vegetable used primarily in baked potato cuisine, using a variety known as Chinese celery or Oriental celery, with thinner stalks and a stronger flavor; it is rarely consumed raw, but is often added to soups and stir-fries.

I've never heard of bake potato cuisine, and in the UK at least, celery is almost always eaten raw, alongside cheese or as the "stirrer" in a Bloody Mary. If you recall the 5th Doctor Who, he has stick of celery pinned to his coat, and that's normally how its served here, as stems, sometimes with the stringy bits scraped off. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn good question. The western US doesn't have a baked potato cuisine, either. We wouldn't put celery on a baked potato, generally, though it probably would be added to a potato soup. The article describes a cuisine using a different breed of celery. Perhaps it is a translation error? I was going to remove it, but on second reading, it might actually belong there... Sorry. Can't help on this one. --Mdwyer 04:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for "baked potato cuisine" reveals a mere two usages, one this article, and the other only as part of the phrase "beef and baked potato cuisine". Surely we can remove this mysterious phrase and replace it with something a little more ubiquitous? Neale Monks 16:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if the original author could defend it. I'm going to rework that line, but I fear I might Americanize it a little. Editing would be greatly appreciated. I removed the baked potato part, and moved the rest of that block down under the Food Uses section. --Mdwyer 19:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on guys... isn't it obvious? "Potato cuisine" is what potatoes cook and eat when they're hungry --Energman 22:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so baked potato cuisine is what potatoes eat when they're baked. Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 19:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is 3 mg of Vitamin C 5% of 100g?

The nutritional information regarding this makes little sense. Also, why is there a percentage for Vitamin C at all and not the other components?

My guess would be that percentages are given for things which have a %RDA. So, 3mg of vitamin C would be 5% of the 60mg RDA set by some arbitrary country's health people, probably the country of whomever wrote that block. Just a guess. DewiMorgan 16:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No patent on celery seed

Reference to a so-called "world patent," which was actually a published application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, not a patent, has been deleted since the patent was not pursued in most countries and lapsed in 2004. 83.78.21.71 22:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Types of celery

Does anyone know the difference in the types of celery at the grocery store? I saw one bundled in red and one bundled in blue bands. One type was less expensive as well. grizzlehizzle 08:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unembedded text

The following references aren't attached to any parts of the article, mixing the footnotes and references is messy, so I'm pasting them here. WLU (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celery First Used as a Medicine, from a Texas A&M University website
Harper, Douglas (2001). Etymology of celery. Retrieved 2005 5 January.
Shadick NA, Liang MH, Partridge AJ, et al. The natural history of exercise-induced anaphylaxis: survey results from a 10-year follow-up study. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;104(1):123-7

Please undo split

Please undo the page split pending discussion and consensus for such. Badagnani (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has already been had, and there is long-standing consensus to distinguish between plant product and plant taxon, but that didn't stop you reverting my efforts, without yourself bothering to seek discussion and consensus for such. Hesperian 06:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was no discussion here. There was no necessity nor consensus demonstrated among editors specializing in celery-related topics for such a split. Badagnani (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, very funny. "Editors specializing in celery-related topics". How do you say that with a straight face? Hesperian 06:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split

I propose to split this article into distinct articles on the plant species ~~Apuim~~Apium graveolens and the vegetable celery. This is in line with long-established convention grounded in consensus, that, for plant products of significance, the combination of plant taxon and plant product is too broad a topic to be covered in a single article.

Actually I already made the split, and was summarily reverted by someone who doesn't like the convention, and therefore refused to permit its application.

The rationale for splitting is as follows:

Apium graveolens is a species of plant. It has certain physical properties such as a growth habit, a stem shape, a leaf shape, a flower form, shape and colour. It has a life cycle, and a flower phenology. It has a natural distribution and a naturalised distribution. It has a taxonomy, a taxonomic history, and phylogenetic relationships with other plant taxa. It has a preferred habitat, such as soil type, soil moisture, and nutrition. It is pollinated by specific insects, and suffers from specific diseases. And finally, it produces certain plant products that are used by humans, namely celery, celeriac, celery seed, and celery oil.

Very little of the information listed above has anything much to do with celery the vegetable. The scope of an article on Apium graveolens far exceeds the scope of an article about celery the vegetable. Yet celery the vegetable has its own characteristics that have little to do with Apium graveolens. Culinary significance, for example. Nutritional information. Economics. The production lifecycle, including cultivation, harvesting, post-harvest treatment, transportation, marketing.

Furthermore, celery is not the only plant product of the plant species Apium graveolens. The root is eaten as celeriac, which already has a separate article, and celery seed is also consumed. Under these circumstances, it makes very little sense to bolt Apium graveolens to the side of this article.

Hesperian 07:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean Apium rather than Apuim? Badagnani (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the necessity for splitting an article, when users will expect to come to Celery to find information about the plant, how it grows and is harvested, and how it is used in various ways. Celeriac is a specific variety and a separate article is fine, but the article does not seem overly long enough to warrant such a confusing split into food and non-food uses of the same stalk. The same goes for Peach or Banana. Badagnani (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split it. It does not make sense to not split it. -- carol (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And more, what the heck is the allergin and what reason does it not have its own article? The science, the growing of and the usage of are all different ways of looking at things and the software which is wiki allows them to all be separate yet linked for those who are interested or need to know. It is an advancement when compared to paper and books (pdf has hyperlinks but what a pain!); not all advancements are easily grokked by everyone involved, I understand this and sympathize, yet still think that it is silly and backwards not to split the article into its useful chunks. Or perhaps there are occasional splits and reversions because old buddies like to go to war here? Either way, please get on with it.... -- carol (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - No logical reason to split a discrete article about a discrete plant/food. The food section is not so big to create confusion for our users by splitting the article into two for no good reason. Badagnani (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Since both the botanic and culinary uses are valid topics under the title "celery", there's no prima facie cause for a split. The article is still short in both contexts, so there is no reason to split on organizational grounds either. In general, I don't think the mentality of "if you build it, they will come" works for the wiki. Let's see the content first, and split when there's good reason to. Ham Pastrami (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

eh compare this search with this one and the common name Wild Celery doesn't seem to appear in the article. I had a recent situation where I was looking to see if a species was even mentioned at a genus article. The genus article almost did not exist because all of the information was mushed together with stuff about one particular species which was being the point of the article. It is kind of interesting how things are being re-evaluated as their DNA gets looked at; more interesting than I thought it would be at least. Even Pliny the elder kept his information about things in different places and it makes for a much better read.

Oppose Encyclopedias are sopposed to be multi-disciplinary, so splitting articles in this fashion serves no purpose other than to create POV-forks. The only situation where we should create a separate article for the food is when the article reaches an unmanageable size, which is nowhere near a mere 13.5k. If the article reaches a truly hefty size (at least 50k+) there should still be a main article that covers all relevant encyclopedic aspects of the plant, if only in summarized form. Peter ^Isotalo 14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see Custard-apple and Annona reticulata, both about the same plant, and split into two separate articles without consensus. Badagnani (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Custard-apple is not an article about a plant. Hesperian 00:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Only because it was split a few days ago, with no discussion nor consensus. Like banana or peach, the term refers to both the plant and the fruit, and should be a single article rather than two. Badagnani (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We write articles on things, not terms... unless you think that Orange (colour) and Orange (fruit) should be merged, because "the term refers to both the fruit and the colour, and should be a single article rather than two." Hesperian 00:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I won't address whether I believe the color orange and the fruit/tree called orange should have separate articles, because this seems like a rhetorical argument; I don't think any WP editor would argue for such a thing. However, a plant and its fruit should be discussed in the same article, such as Peach or Banana, unless that article has grown so long that some form of split seems necessary. In that instance, discussion and consensus would need to be built at that article pending such a split. Badagnani (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I know you think that, but you haven't put forward any argument in defense of that view, except for one so deeply flawed that it leads inevitably to a conclusion that "I don't think any WP editor would argue for". Hesperian 00:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You aren't required to agree with me, and you can call it "deeply flawed" if you wish; WP is a salad bowl of opinions. However, to claim that I haven't put forward any argument (I have) is inaccurate and should be withdrawn. I agree with what Peter Isotalo said, whose comment, which is as follows, is perhaps phrased more eloquently than my own statements:

“

Encyclopedias are sopposed to be multi-disciplinary, so splitting articles in this fashion serves no purpose other than to create POV-forks. The only situation where we should create a separate article for the food is when the article reaches an unmanageable size, which is nowhere near a mere 13.5k. If the article reaches a truly hefty size (at least 50k+) there should still be a main article that covers all relevant encyclopedic aspects of the plant, if only in summarized form.

”

Badagnani (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split one day

A time will come when we should split it, when we really have a lot of info on the plant as a species, rather than the food, which is quite a familiar split. However, the article is not so long as to need it, yet.

IceDragon64 (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is celery?

Is celery a root, stem, flower, or a leaf??

Yes. It is also a seed. Flowering plants usually have all of these. Badagnani (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong picture

The second picture is one of cilantro. Please, change. SvinayaGolova (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing right now. Thank you! Msolway (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple [Edit] links?

What's with the multiple [Edit] links embedded within page sections? They point to different, though consecutive section numbers. Gonna have to go read up on how this happens. rowley (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here y'go: Wikipedia:How_to_fix_bunched-up_edit_links. Have at it! TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

marketed in tight bunches

The article does a very poor job of describing typical commercial growth habits and marketing of the stalks. In the US typical commercial celery grows in tight straight parallel stalk bunches, and is marketed fresh that way, without root and just a little green leaf left attached, but in a bunch. The article needs a picture of typical supermarket celery. Also, the base of the inner bunch of stalks is commonly marketed as "celery hearts". -71.174.180.139 (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Celery

Chinese celery redirects to this article, but there is no mention of it.

It appears to be used only in cooking, be smaller, stronger flavor, have a wider variety of colors, and have slightly differently formed stems and leaves. Also, it seems to have been cultivated there, first.

There needs to be a section on Chinese celery. And the history section needs revision. Anyone good at reliable sources for foodstuff? Jd2718 (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, it is considered a different variety of the same species, USDA GRIN has a summary. Perhaps it should have its own page like celeriac (GRIN entry for celeriac). Would you like to work on that? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try a new page. Thanks for the link. Jd2718 (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, looking forward to seeing the result. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British English

I've added the British English template, after seeing some editing to change to US English. This page has a history of using British English, since it started out as a copy of an old encyclopedia, and by WP:ENGVAR, the history of the page is an appropriate criterion to decide the matter. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters either way. Most articles do well with a mix of the two. I don't think having a mixed article (British English and American English mixed together in one article) has any negative effects on the article quality. Most people don't care if they see the word "program" or "programme", for example (please forgive any slight mispelling of the British English side of things in the example). Many Wikipedia articles are mixed in that regard and I only rarely see any complaints. 66.27.48.50 (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, wikipedia has a Manual of Style which includes the stipulation that the spelling should follow one consistent variety within an article. The shortcut to the manual of style component that lists permitted exceptions to this rule is WP:CONSISTENCY. If the articles you mention are really mixed up, then that is a matter for editors to correct. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Celery Increasing Heart Attack Risk after Heavy Exersize (Due to Hormonal Chemicals in Celery). True or False?

Years ago this was talked about, I don't know whether or not it was an urban myth. In the 80's I would occassionally see on TV some stuff about this. Supposedly celery contains a chemical that mimics a human hormone that can overstress the heart if celery is eaten before heavy excersize. Supposedly any vigerous excersize after eating a significant amount of celery was advised against, due to an increased risk of heart attack. Even if true I don't know if this applies to everyone, or just people who already have a heart condition or an otherwise weakened heart.

If true and if citations are available, this this would certainly deserve a section in the article. Any such addition should be acurate, well sourced and if there is any (credible) controversy on the subject, both sides should be presented in a well balanced manner.66.27.48.50 (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there are some types of serious allergic reactions that only occur with strenuous exercise. Some of these allergies are to food, and celery has been known to cause the problem, as reported in this article. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medical content & sourcing

On the 1st of July 2017 Alexbrn removed the following passages from the "Herbalism" section with the comment "trim unreliable":

"Celery seeds contain a compound, 3-n-butylphthalide, that has been demonstrated to lower blood pressure in rats.^[1]

Celery juice significantly reduced hypertension in 87.5% of patients (14 of 16) tested.^[2] Another study showed the same effect on hypertension associated with pregnancy.^[3]

There is evidence that suggests a link between celery extract and male reproductive health, spermatogenesis, and testicular damage reversal,^[4] but this link has yet to be tested on human subjects.

Bergapten in the seeds can increase photosensitivity, so the use of essential oil externally in bright sunshine should be avoided. The oil and large doses of seeds should be avoided during pregnancy, as they can act as a uterine stimulant. Seeds intended for cultivation are not suitable for eating as they are often treated with fungicides."

^ Sui, H.X.; Yu, Q.; Zhi, Y.; Geng, G.; Xu, H.B. (2011). "Effects of apigenin on the expression of anglotensin-converting enzyme 2 in kidney in spontaneously hypertensive rats". Journal of Hygiene Research. 39 (6): 693–696.
^ Somanadhan, B.; et al. (May 1999). "An ethnopharmacological survey for potential angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors from Indian medicinal plants". Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 65 (2): 103–112. doi:10.1016/s0378-8741(98)00201-3. PMID 10465650.
^ Simpson, D. (1998). "Buchu—South Africa's amazing herbal remedy". Scottish Medical Journal. 43 (43): 189–191. PMID 9924759.
^ Madkour, NK (April 31, 2015). "Beneficial role of celery oil in lowering the di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate-induced testicular damage". Toxicol Ind Health. 31 (4): 355–366. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

I think it would be appropriate to discuss the removal of referenced content beforehand or at least give some background information about why it had to go.

thanks, KaiKemmann (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement to discuss edits beforehand. For why this is unreliable see WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, Alexbrn.

Without wanting to go into detail about the individual sources, would it maybe be an acceptable compromise to indicate the questionable reliability of the cited studies by simply changing the wording of the original text?

Such as:

"Celery seeds contain a compound, 3-n-butylphthalide, that may lower blood pressure in rats."

Or:

"Celery juice reduced hypertension in some patients (14 of 16) tested in an insignificant study.

And:

"A link between celery extract and male reproductive health, spermatogenesis, and testicular damage reversal has been suggested ... but has neither been tested nor proven on human subjects as yet."

I strongly feel that it is always better to put controversial information into the right context than simply deleting it from Wikipedia. Obviously people will still find the deleted content on the internet without understanding that it may be unreliable.

thanks again,

KaiKemmann (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, because we don't build content on unreliable sources. We need secondary sources to validate research results and give assurance it has weight. Alexbrn (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes 17,24

These are defunct links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:F4F8:8D65:3C7C:AEE5 (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Cutting Celery"

I noticed a few gardening sites online refer to there being separate varietys of celery as either "stalk celery" or "cutting Celery". I was surprised that searching wikipedia did not bring up "cutting celery". Is there a contributor who could add language that explains the differences in these varieties and their scientific names? Thanks. 75.80.37.234 (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC) Sandy[reply]

Captain Cook

On his first voyage Cook mentions in his journals (penguin 1999:81) sellery as being plentiful in the part of New Zealand he was exploring... Johncmullen1960 (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which hemisphere?

Cultivation section says "By the 19th century, the season for celery had been extended, to last from the beginning of September to late in April." without mentioning which hemisphere this applies to. Seasons in Northern hemisphere are opposite to those in Southern hemisphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.117.199 (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In context, it seems clear to me: "...celery was grown as a vegetable for winter and early spring...By the 19th century, the season for celery had been extended, to last from the beginning of September to late in April." - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified this anyway per the cited source which is describing the cultivation in England. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use in the Isthmian Games

I noticed that the page reverses the order of celery and pine's use in the Isthmian game victory crowns. The Isthmian victory crown was pine from the foundation of the games until the 5th century BC. It THEN became celery from the 5th century BC to the 2nd century BC. From there, until the 2nd century AD, it was a combination of the two. Source: Broneer, Oscar. “The Isthmian Victory Crown.” American Journal of Archaeology 66, no. 3 (1962): 259–63. https://doi.org/10.2307/501451. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:4701:230:A95A:14CA:AC0:E41A (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed nitrites to nitrates

Under its uses, I changed the statement "naturally occuring nitrites in celery" to "naturally occuring nitrates in celery". The link speaks of sodium nitrate, not sodium nitrite. TimothyforGod (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal (again)

There was a discussion earlier – see § Split – about splitting this article. Having spent several weeks working on articles concerned with the family Apiaceae, I think this needs to be re-visited. Facts that are easily verified are:

Apium graveolens is a wild species which, according to Plants of the World Online, has a native distribution around the Mediterranean and eastwards to the western Himalayas.
The wild species has been bred in cultivation to produce at least three distinct groups (cultivar groups) of vegetables:
- Celery = Apium graveolens var. graveolens or Apium graveolens var. dulce if treated as a botanical variety, or Apium graveolens Dulce Group if treated as a cultivar group.
- Celeriac = Apium graveolens var. rapaceum as a botanical variety, or Apium graveolens Rapaceum Group as cultivar group
- Leaf celery = Apium graveolens var. secalinum as a botanical variety, or Apium graveolens Secalinum Group as cultivar group

Celery is not more connected to Apium graveolens than are celeriac or leaf celery; Apium graveolens should not redirect to Celery. Two possible solutions are:

Have four articles, on the original species, celery, celeriac and leaf celery. The species article would very briefly discuss the cultivar groups and link to their articles.
Have one article, at the species name, that discusses both the original wild species and the three cultivar groups, with redirects from celery, celeriac and leaf celery.

I propose the first solution. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split – option one. Your first proposed solution gets my vote. Thanks, Peter. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question What are the four articles in option 1? Can you show what exists and would be split? Bluerasberry (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blueraspberry: sorry, thought it was clear. This article would be split into one at "Apium graveolens" covering the original wild species and noting, very briefly, the cultivated groups, and one at "Celery". "Celeriac" and "Leaf celery" would remain (with some copy-editing for consistency). Peter coxhead (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split option one I see, so the only new article would be Apium graveolens, which would take content from celery, Sure, I get why one would want to do this. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split – option one. Looking at multiple dictionary definitions of celery, it's pretty clear that it refers to the petiole (leaf stalk) vegetable. The Description and Taxonomy sections of the current article are about the species as a whole. The Europe, Asia and Wild subsections of the Cultivation section are not about the petiole vegetable. Etymology, Harvesting and storage and Nutrition sections are solely about the petiole vegetable. Uses section covers multiple cultivar groups (question, are there particular varieties grown for production of seeds to be used as a spice?) Allergies and Chemistry are relevant to the species and all of the cultivar groups. History section is mixed. Plantdrew (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Split – option one. I looked at the first split discussion, and couldn't understand what they were talking about. Abductive (reasoning) 01:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Split – option one. Seems to me there is enough material for this to be four articles. The concern about balkanizing content by discipline can be addressed by suitable linking between the articles (or summarizing in one and linking to another, or the like). I could also see "Combine – option two" but it would make for a pretty long article which I think would be a bit awkward. Either option would make more sense than the status quo, in which two of the cultivar groups have their own article and the third does not. Kingdon (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson, Blueraspberry, Plantdrew, Abductive, and Kingdon: after a considerable delay, I finally got round to creating Apium graveolens incorporating information about the species from this article, and reducing this article to one just about the celery cultivar group. If you have time, please check! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. The issue has always been one of a willing and able editor to do the work. Abductive (reasoning) 11:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. Thank you, Peter. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Sui, H.X.; Yu, Q.; Zhi, Y.; Geng, G.; Xu, H.B. (2011). "Effects of apigenin on the expression of anglotensin-converting enzyme 2 in kidney in spontaneously hypertensive rats". Journal of Hygiene Research. 39 (6): 693–696.

[2] Somanadhan, B.; et al. (May 1999). "An ethnopharmacological survey for potential angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors from Indian medicinal plants". Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 65 (2): 103–112. doi:10.1016/s0378-8741(98)00201-3. PMID 10465650.

[3] Simpson, D. (1998). "Buchu—South Africa's amazing herbal remedy". Scottish Medical Journal. 43 (43): 189–191. PMID 9924759.

[4] Madkour, NK (April 31, 2015). "Beneficial role of celery oil in lowering the di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate-induced testicular damage". Toxicol Ind Health. 31 (4): 355–366. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]