Talk:Apple/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Please include the following information (concerning cholesterol-lowering effect of apples) into the article

The cholesterol-lowering effect of apple consumption is not actually caused just by the fact that apples do not contain any cholesterol (which is true for all fruits and vegetables), are bulky for their caloric content, etc. No, I think these statements alone are too general. Research on the subject shows much more detail.

For one thing, it seems that this beneficial effect of apples on cholesterol is more potent than that of other fruits (for further information, please look into the study comparing orange pectin to apple pectin - it is mentioned below in references). Moreover, it can be attributed to more specific elements than just "fiber", i.e. apple polyphenols and pectin, and to their highly synergistic combination. Also, I think it is very important to note that this has also been tested in moderately obese human subjects, in a clinical setting. 12-week ingestion of apple polyphenol-containing capsules significantly decreased total cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol levels in those people.

References: 1. Aprikian O, Duclos V, Guyot S, Besson C, Manach C, Bernalier A, Morand C, Rémésy C, Demigné C. Apple pectin and a polyphenol-rich apple concentrate are more effective together than separately on cecal fermentations and plasma lipids in rats. J Nutr. 2003 Jun;133(6):1860-5. 2. González M, Rivas C, Caride B, Lamas MA, Taboada MC. Effects of orange and apple pectin on cholesterol concentration in serum, liver and faeces. J Physiol Biochem. 1998 Jun;54(2):99-104. 3. Nagasako-Akazome Y, Kanda T, Ohtake Y, Shimasaki H, Kobayashi T. Apple polyphenols influence cholesterol metabolism in healthy subjects with relatively high body mass index. J Oleo Sci. 2007;56(8):417-28. --83.31.151.164 (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Apple Tree

Why does Apple Tree point to an article that's nearly entirely about the fruit itself? There is quite a lot of distinctive information about the tree that is neither included nor appropriate for inclusion in this article covering the fruit. Thistledowne (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Greek Kallisti is spelled wrong.

There should be an iota subscript under the eta (last letter) in Kallisti to make the word a dative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.139.168 (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC) That is totally wrong. I'm like, totally freaking out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.209.16 (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Allergies

The part about the food allergies is wrong...it's not that birch pollen is present on the surface of the apple, but proteins in the apple, and if you are allergic to birch pollen you will also be allergic to the apple proteins.

Since this article is semi-protected, I can't edit, maybe someone could change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.3.203 (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm removing the "triploid" comment

I'm removing the comment about triploids, because it's unreferenced and doesn't have any explanation associated with it. If it's to go back, I think we need some explanation of why apples are triploids, how they became triploids, and how this fits in with the "extreme heterozygotes" comment. Even the original commit said that it was "contradictory",

This is because seedling apples are an example of "extreme heterozygotes", in that rather than inheriting DNA from their parents to create a new apple with those characteristics, they are instead different from their parents, sometimes radically.[28] Triploids have an additional reproductive barrier in that the 3 sets of chromosomes cannot be divided evenly during meiosis, yielding unequal segregation of the chromosomes (aneuploids). cojoco (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not removing it, because it is referenced. However, it's still contradictory, and needs more explanation to make any sense. cojoco (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Garden of Eden "Apple" = "Fruit": etymology

There is nothing on this page about the etymology of the term "apple".

The Wiktionary entry (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Apple) acknowledges that the term was generic for all kinds of fruit and nuts, but this page omits this information from the entry on possible sources for the "apple" in the garden of Eden. According to the online Etymology dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=apple) the word was still a generic term in the 17th century when the early Modern English Bibles, including the King James Bible, were being translated. Aardvark01 (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Aardvark01 11/07/2011

fruit ≠ tree

The apple is the pomaceous fruit of the apple tree ... and is a perennial.

The fruit is a perennial? Is this a usage with which I'm unfamiliar, or a poorly-built sentence? (I'm not gonna change it before asking.) —Tamfang (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the wording is in reference to the fact that the apple tree is a perennial. I'm not sure if it's correct to refer to fruit :trees with the terms annual or perennial, but theoretically speaking, a fruit tree would be a perennial, since they don't need to be :replanted each year. Still unsure of whether or not crop plant (and non-tree) terminology is also applicable to trees. --Lmpalmer1 (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

For the term apple- Would you call is vascular or nonvascular? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.206.58.208 (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

i want to know what a apple has inside to make the apple float in hot water and in milk that is what i really want to know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.176.151 (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

the fruits and stuff are all made in jamaica — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.148.56 (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible Mistake on Nutritional Value

Quote: " Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz) Carbohydrates 13.81 g Sugars 10.39 g Dietary fiber 2.4 g Fat 0.17 g Protein 0.26 g Water 85.56 g "

Adding of these numbers is equal to 112.9 g. But it says "in 100g". Therefore, there can be a mistake.

Both sugar and dietary fibers are carbohydrates.94.145.236.194 (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 9 October 2011

The info on oral allergy syndrome is wrong. It is not due to birch pollen being left on the apple. It is due to a cross reaction to a similar allergen. This should be changed.

99.240.200.220 (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I can fix that for you, but need a source for the information.Imgaril (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done for now, until a source is provided. Once provided, just change "answered=yes" to "answered=no" and someone will make the edit. Skier Dude (talk) 05:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm a bit late here, but I have found a source for the information (the IP is correct) and changed the info. Well, actually, I rewrote the whole paragraph because it had major issues, but in the process I corrected this issue too. Dana boomer (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 4 November 2011

Please change "Improved transportation of fresh apples by train and road replaced the necessity for storage.[9][10]"

with "Apples are now stored year-round in "controlled atmosphere" storage in commercial "cold storage" facilities."

source http://www.bestapples.com/facts/facts_controlled.shtml

67.171.35.67 (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added the new source and info into the History section of the article. I don't think it is appropriate to replace the existing information, because it is talking about historical trends, but it is appropriate to add in the new information. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Sugar content

Let's be better about the sugar content. All sugar is different. We have the monosaccharides, disaccharides, trisaccharides, oligosaccharides, and polysaccharides. This information is very helpful for people with diabetes so that they may be better educated when they are making food choices. I would like to see the glucose, fructose, and galactose content along with the sucrose content. Is there information about this subject? If so, it would be tremendously helpful for someone whom has diabetes, which there is a growing number of people who are diabetic. Thanks --Opposed2oil (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As a diabetic myself, I was interested to read your comment here. My guess is that the sugar content would be mainly fructose, the form of sugar typically found in fruit. Please do not forget that for diabetics, it is not merely important to eat a diet low in sugar, but also to eat a diet high in dietary fibre - see the article Diabetic diet - so it is good for diabetics to eat apples and other fruits, as they are likely to be high in fibre.

Requested move by User:Davidfreesefan23 at 01:08, 25 February 2012

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

---

• Apple → Apple (fruit)
• Apple (disambiguation) → Apple

– I feel that a great many Wikipedia users who search the term "Apple" are looking for the company rather than the fruit, so I think that Apple should become a disambig page and the current text of the article on the fruit could be moved to Apple (fruit), which is currently a redirect. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The nom is not proposing to make the computer company primary. There is already a hat note for the company on the top of the fruit article. So that article is one click away, with or without this move. All this does is put an ugly disambiguator on top of the fruit article, which I should note is a very popular article with 540,000 page views in the last 90 days. Disambigutors belong "under the hood", and it's a glitch in the MediaWiki software that they get put on top of the articles in huge type. Kauffner (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's popular – people are looking for the other Apple. Vranak (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I dunno, Apple has 178,000 hits, and other reasonably equally popular fruit e.g. the banana has 179k hits. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. IMO, the fruit should remain the primary topic based on the "long-term significance" factor – it has substantially greater and long-term enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. The fruit has been around for centuries, and has influenced several cultures over that long period of time (see Apple (symbolism) and Apple#Cultural aspects). Even the company was named after the fruit (History of Apple Inc.#Apple II even currently says that Steve Jobs selected the "Apple" name partly because he previously worked at an apple farm). Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:CRYSTAL – intimating that Apple (the company) is of lesser 'long-term significance' is unwarranted at this juncture. They're not exactly fading into obscurity. Vranak (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Intimating that the computer company is of equal long-term significance, enduring notability and educational value is probably also unwarranted at this juncture either when trying to compare a centuries old (dating back to biblical and ancient times-type old) concept versus an entity that only has been around since 1977, and probably did not gain any significance until 1984, or even heavy worldwide prominence until 2007. For example, per WP:CRYSTAL, it is currently difficult to compare the long-term scientific and technological influence between the 5-year old iPhone and the 18th Century Isaac Newton's apple incident. That's part of my reasoning to keep the status quo. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Zzyzx11. On my computer is a logo depicting . . . an apple! The longtime Mac user Rivertorch (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Saying that as an Apple owner, you want it to point at Apple (the fruit) despite your obvious liking of the company doesn't add much to the discussion, I am sorry to say. Vranak (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:BIAS , WP:RECENTISM, and educational value of the fruit is greater. Also the fruit appears in all forms of media more often than the company or its products. Look at your supermarket flyer. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think WP:RECENTISM applies here. Apple (the company) has been around for what, three decades now. Vranak (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If you said "apple" in 1990, it would not be the computer company, it's only in recent years that Apple the company has reached such heights in prominence. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, that depends on context. To those who were using Macs in 1990, the word "apple" certainly denoted something other than fruit at least some of the time. Still, the company was "Apple Computer" (my emphasis) until 2006, not just "Apple" (or "Apple Inc"), which may lend a bit more support to the recentism argument some editors have made. Rivertorch (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. per all of the opposition arguements posted above. --Falcadore (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a vote. See WP:PERNOM and/or WP:MAJORITY. Vranak (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Apple Inc's particular prominence has only come about in the last few years. However I'm not convinced that the fruit is undeniably the primary topic. The computer companies and impact influence is very large now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - the fruit is clearly the primary topic. Not only is the computer company named after the fruit, sales of all of its products (even counting iTunes) is only amount to a small fraction of the number of apples sold worldwide. Regardless of the prominence of the computer company, the average person interacts far more with the fruit than they do with the company. (Note also that while the company is called "Apple", its products are rarely called "Apples" - rather, they are called Macs, or iPods, iPhones, iPads, iTunes...) And that's ignoring the whole sweep of history associated with the apple, including it's (mis)identification as the 'forbidden fruit'. Guettarda (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think the fruit is clearly the primary topic. Take a look at the readership for example, the fruit has been viewed 178,784 times over the past 30 days, whereas the technology company has been viewed 330,283 times - or nearly twice as much - even though the fruit occupies the primary topic space for the name and thus is likely to attract readers who actually wish to read about the technology company, and therefore boost its readership numbers.
  • Even back in January 2008 there were only 140k hits for the fruit vs 90k for the tech company, which I think even at that point is pretty dubious as to meeting WP:PRIMARYTOPIC's "much more likely than any other" clause - which certainly isn't met now. Currently there are also between 4000 and 4500 links to the tech company vs between 1500 and 2000 links to the fruit.
  • The level of opposition here seems more appropriate for a move moving the technology company to the article location of the fruit. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

    To clarify, my argument again is based on the other parts of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which say:

    There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic ... A topic [can also be] primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term ... In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance. In such a case, consensus determines which article, if either, is the primary topic.

    I do not deny that the article on the computer company has more recent hits, but the key word is recent. The company has only been prominent in the last few years compared to the fruit, which has had far more impact over the past centuries. With all things equal, I'd prefer to side with the "long term significance" factor instead of the "usage" clause, and keep the status quo. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

    True enough, and that is a good argument. But I think for the past 4 years in hindsight this move has seemed reasonable which to me seems to be long enough to override that - we can always move it back later.

    I suppose I was more surprised about the level of opposition rather than there being some opposition. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

    Four years <<< centuries. I still do not think that is enough time to usurp the fruit's place as the primary topic based on long-term, educational importance. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

    In which case how long would ever be enough? 100 years? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I specifically entered 'Apple' the other week to see where I'd end up. Was surprised it was the fruit. For me this boils down to one thing alone – will more users who enter 'Apple' want the company or the mundane, frankly boring fruit? I think the former. Vranak (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  Do you realize that this is not a proposal to make the company primary topic? If this move is done, a user who types in "Apple" will wind up at a DAB. He will be one click away from the company's page. We already have a hat note for the company on top of the fruit article. So this proposal will not improve access to the article about the company. Kauffner (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  I do now. Vranak (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  While hatnotes are useful, disambiguation pages are better at disambiguating than hatnotes at the top of the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  Why do you think so? I find hatnoted articles more efficient than dab pages, which are no one's ultimate destination. The latter require an additional click by everyone who visits them, while the former are exactly what at at least some users were seeking in the first place. Rivertorch (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  The best evidence I have is how the readership of "China" shot up from 288k hits in August 2011 to 644k hits in January 2012 after the article was moved from People's Republic of China to China - now admittedly the China article has some extra history that the People's Republic of China article didn't have, but I don't think that's enough to take account of the sudden boost of extra readers gained.
  From a software perspective if you want someone to make a decision right away usually you use a modal dialog, which is more akin to a disambiguation page rather than a hatnote. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  Your example supports Rivertorch's argument (that sending users directly to the article that they seek is beneficial). You compared the use of a hatnote to this instead of comparing it to the use of a disambiguation page. —David Levy 22:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think its clear that they do seek the fruit as the tech company has higher readership and a higher number of links by a factor of two. Additionally "China" wasn't a disambiguation page before the move - it was an article - so it had a hat note to take people where they (probably) wanted to go. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  1. The number of page views doesn't necessarily reflect the number of readers seeking a particular article. Information about a technology company changes far more often than information about a fruit does, so users are likely to visit the former's article with significantly greater frequency.
  2. That a person intends to visit the Apple Inc. article doesn't necessarily mean that he/she would attempt to do so via the "Apple" page. The fruit is widely known as the historical (and a modern) usage of the word, so many readers undoubtedly assume that it occupies the base title (and for those that don't or are unsure of what else to type, a hatnote works as well as a disambiguation page would).
  3. I'm familiar with the China article's history. As I said, you're comparing the use of a hatnote to direct arrival at the intended article, not to the use of a disambiguation page. —David Levy 23:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  I must add that most readers come to an article through Google or links, so fiddling with disambiguators is unlikely to have a major effect on traffic patterns. As for China, that was merged with PRC, so the new article has a combined readership. I am assuming that no one wants to merge Apple and Apple Inc. Kauffner (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, per the above arguments. In my view, the fruit is the primary meaning under either or both of our usual criteria (and especially the "long-term significance" criterion). —David Levy 22:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with David Levy. The fruit has a much greater and lasting significance on the world than the company does.Currently, Apple Inc is fairly prevalent in the news. However, the fruit has been around for centuries, and it has a very long lasting impact on history. Apple Inc has only been around for about 35 years. Also, the Apple company in fact comprised of an Apple fruit. If someone wrote a book called "Earth", and it got a large amount of recent press coverage, we wouldn't move the planet article to a disambiguation title and then move the disambiguation page to the main title. A brief influx of coverage won't demonstrate the topic's long lasting significance. The Earth would still have a much longer lasting historical impact on the world. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - and someone please add the reason why to WP:Title. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Scientific Binomial for Domestic Apple

The currenly accepted binomial for the domestic apple is Malus pumila Mill. , not "Malus domestica". You can check this at any up to date on-line reference for plant names, USDA, Tropicos, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.218.42 (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't think it is that simple. In this study by Robinson et al. Malus domestica is shown to be polyphyletic and almost certainly a hybrid. I still prefer Malus x domestica as it at least flags that it is not a monophyletic species. ref: J. P. Robinson, S. A. Harris and B. E. Juniper "Taxonomy of the genus Malus Mill. (Rosaceae) with emphasis on the cultivated apple, Malus domestica Borkh." Plant Systematics and Evolution Volume 226, Numbers 1-2, 35-58, DOI: 10.1007/s006060170072 Onco p53 (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"The apple" or "An apple"?

"The apple is the pomaceous fruit of the apple tree..." Using "the" in front of apple is kind of strange. Should it be "An apple" instead? -- [ Derek Leung | LM ] 02:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Apple pips do contain cyanide

Some one removed my text that the apple pips contain cyanide on the grounds that it was already present in the previous paragraph. I have just read the paragraph in question (that on allergies) and I cannot find this fact anywhere. Apple pips certainly do contain cyanide, so can this please go back in the text? Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

First paragraph of the Nutrition section - "However, apple seeds are mildly poisonous, containing a small amount of amygdalin, a cyanogenic glycoside. It usually is not enough to be dangerous to humans, but can deter birds." Also, I have reverted your most recent edit because 1) It was also already partially discussed above, and 2) your addition was unsourced. This article is a good article that I worked rather hard to have kept at good article review last year, and adding unsourced content is a very good way to have the article taken back to GAR. New material needs to be properly sourced, properly integrated and not duplicative of information already in the article. Dana boomer (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for getting back to me on where you can find this information, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It does occur to me that many people may not know what "cyanogenic glycoside" is, so should it be clarified that this is a form of cyanide? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

elastin and collagen?

The Times of India is not a reliable source for scientific and medical information. I don't believe plants have any elastin or collagen at all. --Ronz (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

For academic topics, the sources should preferably be revised. The assessment of validity depends on the author himself, issuing the consideration and the conditions in which was published. A sourse considered appropriate, using the more valid works which cover the prevailing opinions. Dactarianou (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for edit

The wikilink for apple seed oil needs delinking as the oil article refers to a different 'apple'. Not sure if apple oil is actually produced. 79.79.249.230 (talk) 08:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. What "different 'apple'"? The link is to apple seed oil, which is apparently made from the seeds of apples. Rivertorch (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Apple seed oil is a mess, and should not be linked here. The opening sentence describes it as being made from Calocarpum mammosum (now known as Pouteria sapota, which is not an apple). Of three references used to form that article, one is about P. sapota oil, one is about medicinal uses of apple flesh, and one is an description of the composition of actual apple (Malus) seed oil. The reference on Malus seed oil notes that it is not commercially produced, although the authors advocate production. At present apple (Malus) seed oil is not a notable topic. I will be removing the link to apple seed oil from the apple article and will propose apple seed oil for deletion (the topic would be better covered at sapayul oil or sapote oil, but there is very little content there so it can just be addressed in Pouteria sapota.Plantdrew (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I missed that. Thanks for clearing it up. Rivertorch (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've looked a little further, actual apple seed oil is being produced on a small scale for cosmetic purposes. Unfortunately, one of the top Google results for "apple seed oil" appears to be the source of the Malus/Pouteria confusion. I'm not going to delete the apple seed oil article, but I will remove all the Pouteria content. There won't be much left, and I'm not sure that it's a notable subject, but I will readd the link to this article.Plantdrew (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Also toffee apples are not covered in toffee but are the same as US candy apples - covered in a hard candy. 79.79.249.230 (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Cultivars of apples

I recently heard on BBC Radio 4 that one could eat an apple a day for a whole year and never eat the same apple twice. Perhaps the sheer variety of apples in existence could go in this article somewhere. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The UK's National Fruit Collection, which is the responsibility of the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs, has a collection of 3,500 accessions in Kent. The University of Reading, which is responsible for developing the UK national collection database, provides access to search the national collection at http://www.nationalfruitcollection.org.uk/index.php. The University of Reading's wwork is part of the European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources collaborative programme of which there are 38 countried in the Malus/Pyrus working group. http://www.ecpgr.cgiar.org/index.php?id=2501&tx_wfqbe_pi1[uid]=59 Isthisuseful (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC) The UK's national fruit collection database contains a wealth of information regarding alternative name for what is essentially the same 'genetic' apple variety. Search for Court Pendu Platt to find alternative names including names in use across many other countries.

I have added a couple of sentences to indicate the existence of the UK national fruit collection. This could be supplemented by other English tongue collections, e.g. Irish, Australian etc. I have also added this information to the cultivars talk page. Isthisuseful (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Varieties of apples

This article would be improved if it named different varieties of apples, such as as Royal Gala, Jonagold or Pink Lady. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a good idea. I think you'll find some of what you're looking for in the "Apple cultivars" section of this article. Note that there are 7,500 cultivars to choose from. See also: List of apple cultivars. --Ds13 (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Malus domestica vs. M. pumila (again)

I'm not sure that M. domestica is the correct name for apples. M. domestica dates from 1803, M. pumila from 1768. M. pumila has priority if they are considered the same species. If M. pumila is a separate wild species from the cultivated apple, M. communis (1798) still has priority over M. domestica. There is a pending proposal to conserve the name M. domestica for the cultivated apple, but it has yet to be acted on. The proposal can be found here [1], but is probably behind a paywall for most folks. The status of the proposal can be viewed here [2], (search for Malus domestica); currently it has not been voted on. Hopefully the proposal will be passed in the near future and this mess can be straightened out. If it does pass, Malus pumila will be sunk into synonymy under M. domestica. I'm not sure if there are any good reasons to consider a wild M. pumila as a separate species, or what name would apply to that entity if the proposal passes.

I'm not proposing any changes to this article at present. M. domestica is widely used as the scientific name for the apple. However, I'm not convinced that Malus pumila is a distinct species meriting it's own article. Could we treat M. pumila as an (older) synonym of M. domestica? M. pumila is widely used in the literature to refer to domestic apples, and it's a little misleading to have the article with that title about a wild species (which may or may not be distinct).Plantdrew (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that M. domestica is fine to use, though it might be better if it was made clear that M. pumila is a synonym, and preferred by some authors (e.g. Mabberley et al http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/72786/Tel9Mab421.pdf argues it has priority - see p421 and p426). However of more concern is the separate 'M. pumila' article (as noted above) which implies that this is different from M. domestica - and states it is native to Europe and that it is called the 'paradise apple'. Both of these statements appear to be untrue - the European native apple is M. sylvestris, while the reference given (and the one above) indicate that 'paradise apple' is merely a variety of M. pumila. I would suggest deleting the 'M. pumila' stub entirely. Leornian (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I added a hatnote to Malus pumila linking back to this article and added "Malus pumila auct." as a synonym in the taxobox in this article. The majority of incoming links to Malus pumila appear to intend the domesticated apple (most are articles about various insect species with apples linked as plants they feed on). There seems to be only one source (ARS/GRIN database) cited in the M. pumila article supporting that as a separate entity. Malus pumila should probably redirect to apple (rather than being deleted entirely). If there's really a need for an article about ARS/GRIN's M. pumila, Paradise apple seems like a reasonable title.Plantdrew (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 September 2012

In the maturation and harvest section, it states that the "average" yield of a mature tree is 88lb to 440 lbs. Are you including dwarf trees perhaps? Because a full grown mature apple tree that yields 2 bushels of apples is a pretty poor producer. Given a bushel, according to most sources, is (roughly) the equivalent of 42 lbs in the USA.

Even the upper listed range of 440 lbs is underestimating, as (depending on variety) a mature standard size tree can yield up to 18 bushels, or about 750 to 800 lbs of apples.

This information needs to be corrected, and average yield ranges provided for standard and semi-dwarf trees at the least, and perhaps dwarf trees as well. As well, perhaps including information for columnar types may be in order as I'm not sure the average yields for those fall into any of the other classes of trees.

It wouldn't hurt to list some specific varieties at either end of the range, but at least correct the current information to reflect actual yield ranges according to class (tree size). 66.57.60. 99 (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. And please propose the exact wording you'd like to see. Rivertorch (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are some data from a reliable source (though I did some arithmetic): from 23 trees, the average (mean) yield was a little over 648 pounds, with the maximum at 2120 pounds. This includes a few trees that produced under 100 pounds but excludes those with no yield. This is just from one of a number of tables in the article. The source is http://www.nass.usda.gov/Education_and_Outreach/Reports,_Presentations_and_Conferences/Yield_Reports/Research%20Report%20on%20Virginia%20Apple%20Objective%20Count%20Surveys.pdf, table 10c, p. 34 More tree yields are given just before this, but I didn't go through the other two tables or see if there were even more. These trees are from Virginia, USA in 1965. Strangely enough, the U.S. govt. apple site does not give yields per tree.202.179.19.24 (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

TOP 10 Apple producers

In this article, the Top Ten Apple Producers in 2008 are stated to be China, USA, Iran, Turkey, Russia, Italy, India, France, Chile, and Argentina. Clearly, Poland is missing on the third place, with a production of 2,830,870 tonnes per year! This data can also be derived from the source named (FAO: http://faostat.fao.org ).

The TOP TEN would have to be China 29,851,163 United States of America 4,431,280 Poland 2,830,870 Iran 2,660,000 Turkey 2,504,490 Italy 2,208,227 India 2,001,400 France 1,940,200 Russian Federation 1,467,000 Chile 1,370,000

Sterfaine (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the U.S. government, the top producers (2010, most recent data they list)are:

China United States Turkey Italy India Poland France Iran Brazil Chile Russian Federation in that order. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1825 table 40. Currently, the Wikipedia article gives a list but no source. 202.179.19.24 (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Please use "Autumn" instead of "Fall". Fall is a foreign term for many countries..

124.150.36.91 (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Replacing "Fall" with "Autumn" doesn't mean deleting whole sentences that happen to use the word. Nor should it be applied to the dating of a "Fall edition" of US journals. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Nonetheless, there doesn't appear to be a compelling reason to retain fall in the lede, so I have changed it. Rivertorch (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Do not agree. Deciduous trees flower in the spring, duh, not worth mentioning. Summer apples such as 'Summer Pearmain', 'Early Summer Pearmain', and 'Pristine" ripen much earlier than the "fall" or "autumn". 'Pristine", as I know first-hand, ripens at the start of August and keeps for no more than two weeks in Toronto (which is not a tropical place). Nadiatalent (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Is autumn used in the US? If not then this should fall under WP:ENGVAR and then if the article is US English it should use fall, and if its not then it should use autumn.

If autumn is used in the US then good call. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The article was written in American English until this edit introduced British spellings. The usage remained mixed until this edit, wherein the same user (undoubtedly acting in good faith) replaced the American spellings with British spellings. So according to MOS:RETAIN, American English is the article's default variety (though I've never seen a pressing need to restore it).

While "fall" is prevalent in American English, "autumn" is common as well (so the latter's use is appropriate either way). —David Levy 20:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If autumn is used in the US, then that is the right word to use. Fall isn't used here in the UK. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Per MOS:COMMONALITY, "autumn" generally is preferable, even if an article is written in American English (in which the word is less common but perfectly acceptable in most contexts). —David Levy 00:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That was my thinking. Autumn is widely understood wherever English is spoken. Rivertorch (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps reconsider the use of "early- mid- and late-season" instead of summer/fall/winter. While mainly written in American English, Wikipedia aims at being a global encyclopedia. Actually, "winter" varieties is rather nonsensical in producing areas at lower latitudes (for instance in Portugal or the north of Africa), where even Granny Smith is harvested during early autumn. This proposal accommodates a common language understanding of the words, which are altogether more correct in a scientific context. Because of the great variation in harvesting calendar with latitude, but also because the succession of ripening time of varieties is rather constant, very often pomologists and breeders state these dates by reference to a standard (ex.: 2 days before Granny Smith; 3 days after Golden Delicious): this indicates the relative position of harvest (and the same is used for flowering) in a manner that can make sense and be understood by the colleagues working in other countries.Jmsmartins (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Citations no longer working

Citation number 60 used for the section on allergies is no longer properly displayed. The source has moved to a different domain.

Also, there are many citations needed in the religious and cultural sections.

JoeMeas (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Organic Production

Shouldn't the brief section on organic production be moved to the main production section? JoeMeas (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 March 2013

"The tree originated in Western Asia, where its wild ancestor, Malus sieversii, is still found today." in the first paragraph should be switched to "The tree originated in Central Asia, where its wild ancestor, Malus sieversii, is still found today." according to the wikipedia page of Malus sieversii 108.39.176.106 (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Done Note that Wikipedia defines Western Asia as what many call the Middle East. – Wbm1058 (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Genome Size

The article claims: "It had about 57,000 genes, the highest number of any plant genome studied to date". Although this might be true in the technical sense that I'm not clear on whether Paris japonica has had its genes counted at this point, it has 150 billion base pairs, while the apple has only 750 million. This is two orders of magnitude more base pairs, and Paris japonica almost certainly has vastly more genes. I would propose that the article merely state that the apple has 57,000 genes and leave it there. --Pmetzger (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Pests and diseases

I removed the following odd sentence and even odder ref:

Organic apples generally have the same of conventionally grown apples, with cosmetic differences. ref name="Modeling and Simulation: Proceedings of the Annual Pittsburgh Conference"

I think I can figure out what was meant, something to the effect that organic apples are similar to conventionally grown apples but with more bruises or something, but that ref did not seem to fit. Desoto10 (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

GA nomination failed

I have looked at the article, but feel that it is unsuited to good article status in its current form. The statements that have been unreferenced since February need to be referenced before the article can be considered in more detail. Furthermore, the pair of trivia sections at the end does not make me eager to promote the article. Phil Sandifer 15:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)