Talk:Coffea canephora/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

Robusta was kind of mixed in with coffee and arabica and I thought it worthwhile to split it out. You may wish to jump to coffee, coffea or coffea arabica until more content is added to this page. Garglebutt 03:08, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Name move

Normally the name of articles on plants is the scientific name; however, in the case where "a plant is of interest outside botany—for example because it has agricultural, horticultural or cultural importance—then a vernacular name may be more common", and reliable sources do use the common name more frequently than the scientific one. Per WP:FLORA, this article should be moved to Robusta coffee; that would mean the scientific name becomes a redirect here, so a search by common name or scientific name would still lead here, though when arriving, neither the specialist nor the common reader will be surprised, as both will be able to identify that they have arrived at the correct article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with the naming convention for this article. Even internally this article refers to the other major species of cultivated coffee by its scientific name, Coffea arabica. The article in Wikipedia on Coffea arabica is called "Coffea arabica" and refers to Coffea robusta as "Coffea canefora (robusta)." This article is mainly about the plant itself and not the commercial selling of coffee beans, grinds, or drinks to the end user.

MarcKennedy (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand the reasons for your disagreement. However, Robusta is the main name used by reliable sources, and that is what our guidelines say we should go by. The sources used in the article all say Robusta, even when they also use Coffea canefora. The applicable guidelines are WP:FLORA and WP:Common name. The thinking is that if the most common name is used, then when readers arrive at the page they know they are in the right place. It is the principle of least astonishment. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's worth taking a look at the pages that link here. The other articles are about coffee production rather than the plant. It may be worth considering having two articles at some point - one on the plant, and the other on the bean - but at the moment there isn't enough material to make that split. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The WP:Common name article supports a scientific name for this article. Quoting from there

"In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals"

The International Coffee Organization, an incredibly reliable source, refers to this species by its scientific name even on their public website (see http://www.ico.org/botanical.asp#bot).

The WP:FLORA article supports the scientific name for the article about the Robusta subspecies also. Quoting that article

"Note that it is often possible to distinguish between plant taxon and plant product, and in those cases it is not necessary to treat both in a single article. For example, it is acceptable to have separate articles on a grape (an edible fruit) and Vitis vinifera (the plant species that most commonly yields grapes). When a decision is made to treat them separately, the taxon article should use the scientific name."

There is a Wikipedia article devoted to the plant product coffee already, so this article, which is about botany, should be titled after the scientific name. Also, from the Flora article,

"Redirects should be created for all commonly used names, including vernacular names and synonymous scientific names. All such names should be mentioned in the article. Names that are genuinely widespread and familiar should be mentioned in the lead paragraph."

A search on Wikipedia just for the term "robusta" does not lead to only an article about Coffea robusta because "robusta" is a common second part of a binomial name (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robusta). Most scientific sources I have found refer to the robusta subspecies more often as Coffea canefora. To remain consistent with Wikipedia guidelines and science, this article should be renamed "Coffea canefora" with redirects from Robusta coffee and Coffea robusta. MarcKennedy (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about coffee in general, it is about the plant and coffee bean Robusta. I agree with you that it is possible at some point, with enough material, to have two articles - one dealing mainly with the plant, and one dealing mainly with the bean, and both articles would have sections summarising and linking to the other; but we are not at that state at the moment. We need to build the article first. At the moment this article is carrying information about both plant and bean, and our guidelines suggest we use the name most commonly used by reliable sources in order not to confuse the general reader. A general reader looking for information about the coffee bean Robusta, about the plant it comes from, where it is grown, etc, would be looking for "Robusta coffee", and will be reassured they have arrived at the right page, when they see the title "Robusta coffee". They are likely to be a little confused if they arrive at a page called "Coffee canephora" as it is not a commonly used term, the term would not appear on the coffee packet they have in their hand, nor on any literature they would likely have. The term would only be readily recognised by a reader who is already familiar with the term, and would already know that Coffea canefora is a synonym of Coffea robusta. Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia; its aim is to summarise human knowledge in a easily accessible form for the general reader. It is not intended to be a text book for students, nor an authoritative source, nor a scientific journal. Simply a general guide. You know about plants, so you are approaching this topic from the mind set of an expert; you need to think of an area of knowledge you know little about, but wish to quickly understand. You'd want to have a plain and accessible piece of text that does not confuse you. If you wished to learn more about the topic, you'd get some of the text books listed as references. You would not expect to learn everything about the topic from a Wikipedia article. You would only expect to get a general overview and summary. If you are not quite following me regarding the widespead usage of "Robusta coffee" compared to "Coffea canephora", please do a little research yourself via Google Web, Google Books and Google Scholar. Google Scholar shows more sources for canephora, though Google Web and Google Books show fewer. Overall, it is Robusta that is most commonly used, and is used in the full range of sources, including the most scholarly. Robusta is the term that everyone would recognise; canephora would be recognised by just a selection of the potential and actual readership. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Perceived quality versus actual quality: Opinion and national marketing prejudices

This is an encyclopedia, not a blog, and opinions are relevant only when qualified to the point that they are accurately reflecting the majority view and are genuinely useful to researchers. Saying that Robusta is "generally considered to be inferior" is only accurate when the geographic location is specified. There are many markets where Robusta is highly prized, and it is inaccurate to generalize to the entire planet with a statement that is inherently subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rattify (talk • contribs) 18:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that's an interesting perspective. World-wide, it is acknowledged that robusta is a strong, harsh and coarse bean, and I'd not previously heard of an area where the taste of robusta was preferred to that of arabica. There are aspects of robusta that are valued, such as its ease of growing, its yield, its strong flavour, its ability to produce a foam, and its caffeine content; it can be valued for giving body to a blend, especially in a dark roast, where most subtle and smooth flavours are lost anyway, but I'd not heard of people actually preferring the taste of robusta over that of arabica. I can imagine that due to cost, robusta coffee sells more in some regions, but does that indicate a preference for the flavour, or simply for the savings? Be useful to have some sources to confirm what you are saying. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This source says that because of its "special taste and aroma" arabica has had a rise in demand in the Philippines. This source says that there are three varieties of coffee grown in the Philippines, and that robusta is grown as a filler because it is of inferior quality. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)