Talk:Russet Burbank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Russet Burbank potato)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Stub-class, Mid-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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Plants (Rated Stub-class, Mid-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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
It is requested that a cultivar infobox be included in this article to improve its quality.

Availability in UK[edit]

Does anyone know if you can get these in the UK, i'd like to get some for french fries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.161.162 (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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 . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture[edit]

Why are the potatoes in the picture all gross and scaly looking? I have some Russet potatoes with me and they look nothing like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.84.247 (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, are they being baked or something? What is up with them? Quite unrepresentative.J1.grammar natz (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that is because the russet potatoes dont always look the same. Sometimes you can get nice looking ones and they look good to eat, but sometimes they are bad,or have sugar ends and they just look bad. If that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoreyHart (talkcontribs) 19:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
They're not "gross" and scaly looking. That's how they usually appear when the skin is thoroughly washed and slightly damp. The Russet Burbank potatoes in stores are completely dry and have traces of dust and soil still on them, giving them a more uniform, grayish appearance. — QuicksilverT @ 06:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

McDonalds[edit]

I heard these are the preferred potatoes of McDonalds, which I believe is by far the largest potato buyer in the world. Which makes these the most grown potato variety. Or something like that. Anyways, it seems like there should be some sort of mention of McDonalds in relation to this potato. 220.76.15.122 (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As a former senior manager for McDonald's NZ I can confirm that this the worldwide potato of choice for the company — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.1.117 (talk) 03:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Despite their not using the conventional format, we seem to have two valid oppose votes, so clearly no consensus. See below also. Andrewa (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


  • Looking to move to the common name. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • But is it the only potato variety which is russet in color? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
    • No. It also isn't the only potato variety with "russet" in its name. This page[1] about different Russet cultivars describes 42 that have the word "Russet" in their name, along with many other russets. "Russet Burbank" is just one of those 42. Our article under discussion here, describing the specific cultivar called "Russet Burbank", should remain here since reliable sources call it that. Russet potato should be a separate page that describes in general terms what a russet potato is, and perhaps lists some of the different cultivars. First Light (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with First Light, the russet skin is a particular genetic trait that could be combined with very different characteristics of the potato flesh. Burbank's potato has quite a bit of history associated with it, but as far as I can tell the original has died out and the russet variant is what is now grown. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This article's topic appears to be the potato that is most commonly called the "Russet potato". While there may be other varieties of russet color, unless they are also commonly called "russet potato" in reliable sources with sufficient frequency, and until they have articles on WP, they're not relevant here. The fact that Russet potato already redirects to this article demonstrates this is the primary topic. --B2C 20:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article scope[edit]

Whether moved or not, the article needs work.

One option is to rescope it to all potato varieties that are referred to as the russet potato. It's halfway there now, there seem to be images of two different varieties. [2]

Alternatively, and in view of the current redirect from russet potato, perhaps we should have a section on other russet potatoes. There seem to be good sources for such material. That would be my suggestion for now, and see how it develops along those lines. Andrewa (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 3 October 2016[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)



Russet Burbank potatoRusset potato – This is the name most commonly used and therefore the article should be moved there. Bod (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose until issues of ambiguity due to the existence of other russet potatoes are addressed. See sections above for more info. —  AjaxSmack  20:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    • See this link: http://www.larsenfarms.com/choosing-a-potato... It mentions only 2 types of russet potatoes. Therefore, the article can be called "russet potato" and it can detail both varieties in the article. "Russet Burbank" can redirect to "russet potato". --Bod (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
There are at least 7 common varieties of potato with "Russet" in the name. ʍw 13:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article on russet potato should be expanded. Whether or not russet Burbank potato deserves its own article is for another discussion. --Bod (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Move: The term "russet potato" clearly applies to a number of varieties; both articles should be expanded and clarified. ʍw 14:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 11 October 2016[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)



Russet Burbank potatoRusset Burbank – Must match other varieties that don't include "potato" in the name. Bod (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Without "potato", the title will be misrecognised. In introduction, the name is always connected to defining it as a potato, with via "the Russet Burbank potato" or "the Russet Burbank is a large potato cultivar". Obviously, subsequent prose discussing potatoes is not going to want to repeat "potato" thousands of times, and so the text is abbreviated. This is why google ngram misleads. As Wikipedia article titles appear without context, "potato" should be included in the title of every potato article. There are so many potatoes it is not realistic to expect a general audience to know them by name as potatoes. Within articles, it will be normal to pipe to the abbreviated name, editors might prefer abbreviated titles, but readers benefit from meaningful title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Well a conclusion should be drawn from the fact that about half of the potato articles include "potato" in the name and the other half don't. Compare Ranger Russet to Marfona to Atlantic potato. --Bod (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
      • They all should. It is just like Talk:British_White_cattle#Requested_moves_19_December_2014. The most important thing about this subject is that it is a potato, so "potato" belongs in the title. The only exceptions elsewhere is where the title of several cultivars is below a higher level heading already stating "potato". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I've read many sources that discuss Russet Burbank and none of them suffix it with 'potato' as it is completely unnecessary. What else could it be confused with? Note that I previously bought up the subject of potato article names here hoping for some clarity, but without any luck. SmokeyJoe's reasoning doesn't hold weight with me though - why would someone search for an article on a potato variety without already knowing that it is a potato? Even if they did, they would immediately learn that it is a potato from the lead. We don't have Bob Marley musician so why do this any differently? Obviously there are cases were the name could be confused and there are other articles with the same name in which case <name> (potato) is the most consistent format (as when multiple people have the same name). Similarly, the reasoning that many articles include potato in the title is also erroneous since we can simplify them and improve brevity. SmartSE (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The first contains "potato" in both the title and lede sentence. The third is in a journal with "potato" in its name. The second, ok, I'll have to look closer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes but they don't keep on repeating potato after Russet Burbank and anyone visiting this article will immediately know that it is about a a potato. The journal is probably one of the best academic sources available on the variety - this is exactly where we should be looking to see how it is referred to. SmartSE (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The second would appear to support referring to "Russet Burbank"s without needing a "potato" context. However, it is not a journal publication, but a web page resource, and its url: http://cropwatch.unl.edu/potato/russetburbank has the page filed under "potato". So it all fits my explanation, no one talks about "Russet Burbank"s without a preceding or higher level contextualisation including the word "potato". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I really don't agree with your reasoning - many of our article titles are bizarre and the majority of readers wouldn't know what type of organism any binomial refers to, but there is no need to add this information to the title - just click the link! SmartSE (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment If it's a cultivar, as it seems to be, then the correct name under the ICNCP is Potato 'Russet Burbank'. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose Support naming with (potato) in parentheses. --Bod (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I now technically Oppose my nomination. I would rather have consistency across all potato cultivars and the 1st argument was a convincing one. --Bod (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I prefer consistency too. And User:AjaxSmack has brought up the point that (parentheses) are only used for disambiguation, so it would seem like the alternative to Russet Burbank potato would be Russet Burbank and cultivars like Atlantic (potato) where the name needs disambiguating. I could go either way. I think "Russet Burbank potato" looks ugly is all. --04:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Atlantic potato looks quite fine. http://www.atlanticpotato.com/ "Russet Burbank potato" looks ugly, yes, I looks better organised to have have the potatoes listed abbreviated together under potato cultivars, like together in a chapter of a book, and to save of excessive repetition of "potato", but that is not how wikipedia works. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per consistency and conciseness. Articles on food plant cultivars (Category:Food plant cultivars) aren't totally consistently named, but by far the majority don't include a term identifying the species unless it is needed for disambiguation from a topic sharing the name of the cultivar (there are close to 1000 apples and grape articles that don't include the terms "apple" or "grape" in the title). It was highly inappropriate for Bodhi Peace to most of the potato articles to titles with "potato" appended in the middle of this move discussion (and they didn't even quite finish the job). The (mostly) consistent status quo ante was not to have "potato", and that's still the most consistent approach across all food plant cultivar articles. Aside from WP:USPLACE, I don't know of anywhere else where we consistently throw conciseness under the bus and add a term to clarify what something is when it's not needed to disambiguate. There are hundreds of thousands of articles on Wikipedia about subjects that the "average" person is unfamiliar with. Should we add the country to every (otherwise unambiguous) town and city found throughout the world? I'm not very familiar with Pokemon, should all the Pokemon articles have "pokemon" appended? ANK1 and CWP1 are unrecognizable to the vast majority of people; append "protein" to everything in Category:Proteins? Plantdrew (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Consistency and conciseness are at odds, in general, and in this case. The Russet potato cannot be shortened, and for consistency this article could only be Russet Burbank potato. They all usually have "potato" appended if not preceding, in sources in introductory uses, nearly all have a COMMONNAME argument in support of including "potato", including this one. And brevity is not conciseness, remove the potato and you lose information. It is easier to argue that removing "potato" does nothing for conciseness than it is to argue that stripping "potato" where technically possible achieves consistency.
Including a third word in a title is far from throwing conciseness under a bus. At three words, a normal reader can read it in a glance, and it is far short of requiring a linefeed in the title.
This issue of recognizability is not the opposite of "unrecognizable" but of "misrecognizable". Few proteins are misrecognizable as other common subject types. Proteins are mostly obviously technical names (eg ACAD10) or carry an "in" suffix unique to proteins (eg Adiponectin. Apples and grapes, unlike potatoes, tend not to have names that sound like a person's name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Russet potato is a type of potato (like fingerling potato) not a variety/cultivar, so there is no need to be consistent with this article title. ACAD10 could be a missile for all I know... you get my point. SmartSE (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • If you are talking about Umatilla Russet not being moved, that is because it has the unique honor of not being in the "potato cultivar template". If you are talking about Jersey Royals or Vitelotte, those were undone for specific reasons. It is only reasonable that this move discussion be closed and a new one opened for all potato cultivars. Did you read the "British White Cattle" argument? On a closer look, I must say that it does not seem to apply to potatoes very readily owing to its basis in human ethnicities. Now this article is applicable to all the potato articles because of the consistency. --Bod (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support because the name is simply "Russet Burbank". The purpose of an article title isn't to explain what the article is about, that's the job of the article itself. If someone isn't competent enough to figure out they're reading about a potato cultivar, they probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place. -- Tavix (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.