Talk:Berry/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Under current definition what isn't a berry?

I realize that this article is giving the technical understanding but when Wheat berry, other grains, squashes, and so forth all fall under the technical category of berry; while many things that are commonly called berries do not but have to be included in the article because otherwise the article is useless then this article could technically be covering nearly all fruits, most non-leafy, non-root vegetables and grains; which makes it virtually useless. What is scientifically a berry is not the same thing as what is commercially and commonly a berry, and the scientific usage has its place in its domain and should be covered; but shouldn't the focus of the article be on the common and commercial usage of the term berry? Falconjh (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

A wheat berry is not technically a berry. It is a seed. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The scientific term should be of secondary importance here. The artical should reflect the colloquial usage while also explaining differences between colloquial and scientific usage. It seems that the article did so at one point but was later repurposed to completely omit the term in general use. I believe the article needs a better definition section.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

While I agree the article can use improvement, the scientific definition should be primary. The scientific understanding of a berry unites things by morphology and development. The colloquial term has no unifying principal. It should be made clear that the two uses are different and, like any respectable encyclopedia, the scientific definition should be the focus of the article. Rkitko ^(talk) 14:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Which creates a problem because statistical reporting of berry production and consumption isn't according to the scientific definition but according to commercial and common usage of the term; which makes this article completely useless. Falconjh (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

What is making the article completely useless is muddled and inconsistent changes. I suspect the only solution is a split between the confused colloquial use and the consistent botanical use. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

If the empty sections that were created are expected to be filled with anything meaningful to anyone who is not a botanist then I agree; there isn't any unifying feature of culinary, cultural, or economic significance regarding the "scientific" usage of the term; and regardless of restricting it to scientific or not the Cultivation section seems questionable to me as what unifying features exists between the cultivation of a blueberry, banana, tomato, pumpkin, and a grape would be common to essentially all plants. Falconjh (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Nor is there any unifying feature of cultivation for the colloquial usage. Expanding the article in the way apparently proposed doesn't make sense. "Berry" has a colloquial use based on superficial appearance of the fruit, but including plants with growth habits as different as herbaceous strawberries, climbing/vining blackberries and loganberries, and shrubby gooseberries, which require entirely different cultivation techniques. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

True, but Cornell University among others certainly tries hard. http://www.fruit.cornell.edu/berry/production/generalproduction.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconjh (talk • contribs) 16:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Also of interest http://www.euberry.univpm.it/ Falconjh (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• There's really no point in asking plant/botany editors to contribute while the entire basis of the page is being changed. When the new article, since it will be a new article, is finished, then we can split off the botanical material since it clearly won't belong here. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why scientific usage can't be part of the page here. I do think however common usage should be the main focus of the page, but also giving scientific usage. I'm looking at a book The Cambridge World History of Food, and it appears to use berry as understood by the general public (i.e. strawberry as a berry, no mention of banana or eggplant as berries). Hzh (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This is one of those situations in which common usage is demonstrably wrong. I'd rather we make precision and accuracy a priority and make this page a wonderful example of how to write an article about a term with competing definitions while still focusing on the correct definition. The term "berry" is so misused that even the cones of conifers like Taxus are called berries. Efforts like these to undermine correct scientific usage are why Wikipedia loses expert editors. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It isn't any of our business to tell the world what to do. We can say what is common usage, we can also tell them that there is a scientific usage. That is all we can do. Hzh (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Like. Plantsurfer 18:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hzh: scientific and colloquial usage are simply not compatible. I have no objection to a page on the colloquial use of "berry" (unlike Rkitko I'm too much a follower of Wittgenstein to say that popular use of language is "wrong"), but colloquial usage involves a very different concept to the botanical one. Rather than mess up this page, a new one should have been started, using the The Cambridge World History of Food approach. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Although, you are only looking at a particular 'scientific' usage of the term berry as per the usage in terms of crops as per the scientific research groups of Cornell and the multinational grant group euberry, as well as land grant extensions in the US, the common usage is what is important to the researchers, not the botany; as the common usage is of commercial importance while the botanical usage isn't, not as a category of itself. Sure the USDA does sometimes clarify that raspberries aren't true berries, but that doesn't stop them from classifying them as berries and FAOSTAT doesn't even mention the controversy Falconjh (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not a "controversy"; there are simply two different usages, which overlap for some fruits but not others. A Venn diagram could be used to clarify this, perhaps. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• The image which mixes the two uses of "berry" seems to me particularly misleading. For historical reasons, I assume, in colloquial usage, red currants, white currants and black currants are not called "berries" but "currants". (It would be interesting to try to define the colloquial term so as to exclude them!) If the article is to cover both usages, then there should be two images, one for each. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Per FAOSTAT, and the EUberry research group, currents are included as berries.

Falconjh (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

So there are actually three definitions which should be explained: the colloquial one in which, roughly, fruits with "berry" in their name are "berries"; the horticultural/agricultural one which includes other "soft fruits"; and the botanical one. Be careful with the term "currants", since this includes dried grapes in colloquial use. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Currants are included in the botanical definition. I think you would need a source to say that currants is a berry that is distinct from the botanical definition. Hzh (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hzh: but "currants" in this context means black, red and white currants, not what the US calls "Zante currants" and the rest of us call just "currants", i.e. dried grapes. Fruit and vegetable terminology is very country-specific and great care is needed to ensure that we are all talking about the same thing. I was very confused until I realized (and had confirmed by a retired editor of a US gardening magazine) that "berries" (US colloquial) = "soft fruit" (UK). Peter coxhead (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe berry is the same thing as soft fruit in UK usage. Berry is a subset of soft fruit, perhaps its major subset, but they are not completely equivalent. Hzh (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• ENGVAR issue? Maybe there's an ENGVAR issue here which is confusing us. I would be inclined to use "soft fruit" as a generic horticultural term for what the FAOSTAT seems to call "berries". This source suggests that this is a British usage. Certainly the term "soft fruit" needs to be discussed in the context of the horticultural use of "berry". Peter coxhead (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Both definitions of currant fit the botanical definition of berry. Plantsurfer 19:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you have hit it on the head, 'soft fruit' appears to be exactly what is being talked about in terms of FAOSTAT, EUberry, horticulture generally, even if they are all using the term 'berry'. Splitting the article along the lines of the horticultural usage of 'soft fruit'(br) (berry) and berry (botany) would solve things pretty neatly in my opinion; the common usage goes with the horticultural 'soft fruit' usage better than it does with the botanical one. Falconjh (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

But soft fruits are not the same as berries. Your source doesn't state that it is. Some people would include kiwi fruit and figs as soft fruits, but certainly not as berry. Hzh (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

True, however Cornell's Berry page here:http://www.fruit.cornell.edu/berry/production/smallberryproduction.html does in fact list kiwi fruit so from the perspective of horticulture they are using it as including all of soft fruit. Falconjh (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Common kiwis of course are botanical berries, but I recognize that their size and inedible skins aren't very berry-like. What about "kiwiberrys" though? Edible skins and about the size of a grape. I think most folks would call the berries. Plantdrew (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah.. That is what they are talking about so I could be wrong in my assessment. Falconjh (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok so the American PawPaw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asimina_triloba is on their page and that certainly doesn't match most peoples idea of a berry. Falconjh (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

...If even the Huffington Post, not known for its accurate coverage of scientific topics, can get it right, so can we. I think we can either accommodate the common usage into this article or it can be split -- either way is fine with me. Rkitko ^(talk) 19:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You cannot ignore what is common usage. Common usage should be the main focus, not a minor usage that most people wouldn't recognized. An article in Huffington Post is irrelevant to what's used commonly. Hzh (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The average reader that comes to this article is extremely unlikely to be looking for the botanical defintion of a berry. It should be included but should be secondary to what a berry actually is considered to be. It is rediculous to not speak of blackberries, raspberries and cloudberries as berries. The word berry has a long history of being used for these and is used in almost all circumstances apart from the most nitpicky. I also strongly disagree that both terms could not be represented in one article. What would we otherwise call the articles Berry (scientific term) & Berry (commonly used term)? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Berry (Botany) & Berry (Soft Fruit) or Berry (Horticulture) would be my suggestions because it is more than just commonly used but also how the terms are used in reporting of statistics and in research outside of botany, though there may not be a 100% overlap of what is a soft fruit (br) or how it is used in horticulture (though those two usages do seem to overlap pretty well based on Cornell's page) and the common usage it is much closer than the botanical usage. Falconjh (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not a minor usage. It is the definition of the topic of this article. Colloquial usage cannot be ignored, but it shouldn't be the primary focus of this article. Students in high school learn the correct definition. We're not meant to be doing their homework for them, but how confusing is it to come to the encyclopedia entry on berry and find an inaccurate description first? Likewise, Volvox is still commonly thought of as a protist, but we maintain our infoboxes and articles to reflect the most precise and accurate information. Rkitko ^(talk) 20:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I would contest that high-school students learn the botanical definition and the difference in your example is that the term protist does not exist in the common vernacular, it is solely a technical term. It is far more confusing to our readers if the article on berry doesn't cover what most readers will be familiar as berries. We need to cater to readers not to ourselves. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 20:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The scientific definition is very much a minor usage, otherwise why would there be an article in Huffington Post on the subject that included the word "Mind blown. Drops mic."? Berry is a common word, you don't need to be a high school student to learn that. Rkitko should read WP:PRIMARYUSAGE as to what should be considered primary topic. Hzh (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As a former highschooler I never learned that berries are ... something... something ovary, common usage needs to come before technical terms.43.251.164.37 (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I give up. Catering to the lowest common denominator is not an acceptable way to run an encyclopedia. Rkitko ^(talk) 20:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason why we can't have a compromise article. The first line can be the botanical definition of the term, with the common use explained further in the lede, like at fruit. Conifer (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Fruit is not a good example because there isn't such a big disparity to the common understanding of the word compared to berry. According to wikipedia guidelines per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, the primary topic would be the one people are most likely to search on. When people search for berry, it is unlikely that they are looking to read about banana. Hzh (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems better to have scientific definition second?43.251.164.17 (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Nothing stops us from covering both common and botanical usage. As for order, I believe it should be done like this:

• Cover "berry" in general, stating that they have two distinct usages.
• Then cover them both based on their definition. Common usage is, well, more common than botanical usage, so that should be covered first, but it doesn't really matter.
• In the other sections, there is really no need to distinguish them, as they do have similar traits outside of botany.

- Esquivalience ^t 21:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"Nothing stops us" – well that is what we have tried repeatedly in the past, and the fact is that it has fallen apart (repeatedly), particularly dramatically since the article was marked for "improvement", so I would say that we are very much prevented from trying to cover the botanical meaning and the various common meanings in the same article. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Calling the botanical definition as a minor usage sounds really odd to me; That it doesn't align with other usages of the term doesn't mean that it is inaccurate or a minor usage; hence the reason that I really think the article needs to be split up; sure unless determined otherwise the primary page should probably not be the botanical term but it does deserve its own page. Otherwise anything that is to be said is going to have to be clarified as to which term is being used and entire sections will apply solely to one or the other of the two terms; as attempting to gather the statistics on all berry (botany) in terms of production and economic which includes coffee, banana, pumpkin, watermelon, citrus, etc. is not really useful and no one reports the category as berry (botany); as already noted. Falconjh (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

In colloquial usage berries are not all fruits. Many are regarded as vegetables. Extract from List of culinary fruits: "Note that many edible plant parts that are true fruits botanically speaking, are not considered culinary fruits. They are classified as vegetables in the culinary sense (for example: the tomato, cucumber, zucchini, and so on), and hence they do not appear in this list." Add to these the following list from List of vegetables, many of which are botanical berries:

| Avocado               | Persea americana
| Bell pepper           | Capsicum annuum
| Bitter melon
Bitter gourd | Momordica charantia
| Chayote               | Sechium edule
| Cucumber              | Cucumis sativus
| Ivy gourd | Coccinia grandis
| Eggplant / Aubergine / Brinjal | Solanum melongena
| Luffa                 | Luffa cylindrica
| Olive fruit     | Olea europaea
| Pumpkin               | Cucurbita
| Squash | Cucurbita
| Sweet pepper | Capsicum annuum (grossum)
| Tinda                 | Praecitrullus fistulosus
| Tomatillo             | Physalis philadelphica
| Tomato                | Solanum lycopersicum
| Vanilla               | Vanilla
| West Indian gherkin | Cucumis anguria
| Winter melon          | Benincasa hispida
| Zucchini / Courgette | Cucurbita pepo

Plantsurfer 22:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with your terming of the common use of berry as culinary berry. Scientific literature such as ISBN 9781441975539 Berries and Cancer Prevention – Springer 2011 uses berry to refer to blackberries as well as a list of other berries not under the botanical definition. It does however not use the term for avocado's, eggplants etc. The botanical definition is very much the lesser used definition and the common definition is used well outside the culinary world.

Randomly selected excerpt from the book:

whereas anthocyanins are not detectable in berries such as red currant (Ribes × Pallidum cv. White Duch) (Maatta-Riihinen et al., 2004) and gooseberry (Ribes uva-crispa cv. Careless) (Wu et al., 2004). Berries known for their typical high concentration of anthocyanins are black raspberries, blackberries and chokeberries.

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The word 'culinary' is not mine, but the usage in the article title and the extract I gave from it, which is a direct quote. Frankly, I think this discussion has gone beyond hysterical. Similar discrepancies between the botanical definition and common usage occur in all of the articles dealing with fruit (consider e.g. rhubarb) and vegetables (consider e.g. tomato, courgette, okra), yet these seem to be able to deal with the statement that a botanical definition exists without tearing themselves apart. The main problem with this article is that it has developed obsessive focus on the botanical definition, to the exclusion of everything else. You won't succeed in eliminating definition conflicts simply by excluding the botanical definition. The article will be stronger and much more informative if these issues are discussed together in a balanced, rather than adversarial way. Plantsurfer 10:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Plantsurfer: clearly it would be quite wrong not to cross-reference alternative definitions in each article, and I hope no-one is suggesting this. But when "berry" is used botanically, e.g. in the Banana article, it will be of the most help to readers to be able to link to Berry (botany) and not a long article discussing multiple definitions and full of information about the non-botanical definition. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The problem with the botanical definition is that most readers don't know enough about what they are eating to know whether it applies or not, so it requires space to explain that polypyrenous drupes and pomes and aggregate fruits are technically not berries, and that gets in the way of rapidly reading through an article on culinary berries. The various definitions would be better separated. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

So... why are we trying to cover two quite distinct definitions – in that (almost) every section will have different content with different sources for each definition – in a single article? Wikipedia is not a dictionary, distinct definitions of the same word should have separate articles. Wouldn't readers expecting an article on either the commonly used term or the scientific term be better off with two articles that use {{About}} hatnotes? - Evad37 [talk] 01:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think a split is necessary. In this way, we can service readers who are trying to learn about botany with precision toward what a scientifically-defined berry is while also servicing readers who are trying to learn about the cultural context of berries. Otherwise, a botany reader will find it odd that a strawberry is being called a berry, and a cultural/culinary reader will find it odd that an eggplant is being called a berry. Of course, I can see how the eggplant is indeed a berry and the strawberry isn't a berry similar to how a tomato is a fruit not a vegetable, but unlike the tomato comparison I feel that this is because there are two separate definitions for berry rather than there being a public misconception. Or, at least the public misconception has gone so far as to become another definition. Thanks, --Bananasoldier (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Without a split, there is disagreement as to whether colloquial berries or botanical berries are more important. I think that both are more important than each other; it just depends on which reader is reading. If botanical and colloquial stay in the same article, it may work out fine, but then throughout the article, mention of the word berries always has to be marked as "berries", scientific "berries", berries from the colloquial sense, etc., instead of just berries. Thanks, --Bananasoldier (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Splitting makes the information more accessible. Most people are going to be looking for the food or the botany, not both, and those who are looking for both or who get to the wrong article first will easily find the other article. Putting both types of info into a single article would be unwieldy and would force readers to keep skipping portions of subsections to get to the info they're looking for. valereee (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Mini RfC

Since there seems to be a potential edit war brewing over the order, let's try to reach consensus:

• Question 1: Should the common or botanical definition be covered first?
• Question 2: Should we split the article, one for the common definition, one for the botanical definition?

For the sake of readability, refrain from discussing in the below section; do it above. Esquivalience ^t 21:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Answers

• Common first and single article -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Botanical first and single article. Conifer (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Splitting makes the question irrelevant and two articles. Falconjh (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Botanical first and single article.Plantsurfer 22:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Common first and no opinion on splitting unless the article gets too big. Hzh (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Split per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, cover each definition in its own article linked with hatnotes - Evad37 [talk] 01:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Botanical first and only split when it gets unwieldy. Esquivalience ^t 02:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Split. Bananasoldier (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Split per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. It's quite clear that there are two topics here: what we in Britain call soft fruit and the botanical definition. It's essential for glossing plant articles that we have a proper explanation of the botanical use of "berry"; readers directed to this via a wikilink don't want to read about soft fruit. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Split per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. It will be much easier to develop each article independently since having one large article invites all sorts of problems with competing American and British definitions and wording. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Split per various comments already above. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Split most useful to most people that way. Most people are looking for one or the other types of information, not both, and those who are looking for both will easily find the additional information. valereee (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Somehow split into botanical and into general terms - because I want the article to become clear. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 20:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Link fixing

All the links to Berry need checking; some should clearly be to Berry (botany). As of now, since I've only just removed the former from Template:Botany, many pages still show links to "Berry" when they actually don't have them. Hopefully this will clear from the cache soon and more links can be found and fixed. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not as simple as I thought, since other templates also link to "Berry", some correctly (e.g. {{Non-timber forest products}}), others I've fixed (e.g. {{Fruits}}). There's a lot of work needed to fix incorrect links!

Anyone know if it's possible to exclude links from templates when using "What links here"? Peter coxhead (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: This might be what you're looking for. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rystheguy: thanks, but I think this does no more than does searching for "linksto:Berry -hastemplate:XXX" where XXX is a named template. I wondered if there is a way of excluding links from all templates while still finding links in the text. Presently I'm working on "linksto:Berry incontent:Plantae" which finds a lot of plant articles in which the "berry" link should be to "botanical berry". Peter coxhead (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I tried using this tool to find all portals, templates, categories, and images that link to the page "Berry" and then used the tool I mentioned above with the string:

Category:Non-timber forest products|Portal:Drink/Selected ingredient|Portal:Drink/Selected ingredient/2|Portal:Food/Selected picture|Portal:Food/Selected picture/1|Portal:Forestry|Portal:Forestry/Topics|Portal:Plants/Selected article/16|Portal:Plants/Selected articles|Portal:Pokémon/Selected Pokémon|Portal:Pokémon/Selected Pokémon/3|Portal:Textile arts/Selected article|Portal:Textile arts/Selected article/21|Template:Non-timber forest products|Template:POTD protected/2011-11-20|Template:POTD protected/2015-02-09|Template:POTD protected/2015-03-04|Template:POTD/2011-11-20|Template:POTD/2015-02-09|Template:POTD/2015-03-04|Template:TAFI/Collaborations of the day|Template:TAFI/Collaborations of the day (no border)|Template:Today's articles for improvement

(after ensuring that the page was displaying 5000 links instead of the default max of 500), and it reduced the number of links by 153. Still a pretty unmanageable number, but at least the links coming from portals and templates should no longer be displayed. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This seems to work, I agree. It shows up how many links ideally need checking!!! Currently I'm working on the few hundred that were found by the search I mentioned above ("linksto:Berry incontent:Plantae"). Virtually all of these should have link(s) to Berry (botany). I suspect that most of the others probably have the right link, but... Peter coxhead (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Watch "NOTHOW"

Please be careful of WP:NOTHOW, in the Cultivation section particularly. Language like "Strawberries should not be planted more than five years ..." is effectively an instruction. Provided it can be sourced, something like "The yield from strawberries diminishes after five years ..." is better. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it better now? I left out all the ones that were in pdf format. Falconjh (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

One other possibility is to write "planting strawberries in the same soil for more than five years is not recommended, because of decreased yields." That way the information is the same, without imperative voice. We often use this type of language in wp:med, where recomendations can be very important. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with CFCF; I wasn't suggesting leaving out useful information, more noting the need to stick to the letter of WP:NOTHOW. Sorry if this wasn't clear. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Size of reorg

As far as I can tell we had quite many editors working on this article for the past week. It might be because it is such a high level topic, but in any case I will be sticking around a bit longer, and I hope more of you do as well. So it could be a good idea to once TAFI is over tag this with:

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

FAO statistics

There's no explanation in the article of how the FAO statistics were derived, and there should be. Is the table in the article actually in the FAO data set, or was it calculated by combining data on the seven categories defined here? Great care is needed in doing our own calculations, and we need explain clearly how they were done, if that is indeed the case.

Also note that "blackberry" is glossed as Morus nigra (i.e. mulberry) in the FAO definitions, so there appear to be no statistics on blackberries = Rubus fruits, contrary to the article, unless this is a mistake in the FAO web page. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Mainland China is missing from the table, but according to the FAO statistics, it produced 2,760,864 tonnes of strawberries alone in 2012, more than is given for all "berries" in the US. I conclude that the table is seriously flawed, and have removed it until this can be sorted. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal seem to be the right call. Falconjh (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Blanking sections

How about instead of blanking entire sections like has been done in the past few days people look for other sources? In fact many of the explanations for the removals aren't even accurate if one were to read closely what was in the section removed. Not saying that what was there was good, but in the case of cultural significance the source had its own sources so not OR and the appropriate thing to do is find additional sources, not remove what is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconjh (talk • contribs) 15:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagree: the original sources offered under Cultural significance are religious fables impossible to meet WP:V. The Cornell author's publication is loosely associated with verifiable sources, so is best defined as WP:OR. Reliable sources are unlikely to exist. It is not our role at Wikipedia to perpetuate myths. --Zefr (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Finding other sources for brambles (Blackberries) for Christ's crown of thrones is fairly easy to do; for the fairy tale 'Strawberries in Winter' as well; You aren't even clear as to what in particular you are disagreeing with or why you think those myths are not culturally significant within the cultures that they exist. Obviously it is impossible to verify whether Christ's crown of thorns was real let alone had brambles, but that there is a cultural tradition which holds that it does exist and was made of brambles and even additionally that the juices of the berries are the way they are due to the blood of Christ is something that can be verified. Falconjh (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, based on both OR and V you are wrong; Cornell is a reputable university, the author is a reputable author, the paper is published making already not OR and V from that sense and what is cited to not be OR from the perspective of Wikipedia; that you disagree with religion, or that religion, has no bearing on whether or not it is of cultural significance to those who are of the culture that holds those beliefs. Falconjh (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Mythology

The section below was removed from the article per WP:BRD and placed here for evaluation with the following comments and alternate revision:

According to Mediterranean folklore Christ's Crown of Thorns was made of brambles and the color of the berries is from the blood of Christ; a different legend holds that Lucifer entered the bush when he fell from heaven. When Bellerophon tried to ride Pegasus he fell into a thorn bush so that blackberries are also associated with arrogance. Elderberries are associated with bad omens. Raspberries are associated with fragility and kindness, as well as with ensuring good pregnancy and childbirth. Strawberries are associated with righteousness, the trinity, perfection, sweetness, and modesty. The Slovakian version of Cinderella is called 'Strawberries in Winter'. Comments

1. it is difficult to see how such fables linked to berries without sufficient WP:V or WP:SECONDARY can warrant emphasis under "cultural significance"; further, what culture among thousands is to be emphasized in this section?
2. it is illogical to propose a) a crown of thorns from berry brambles supposedly obtained from the eastern Mediterranean region. What berry species would this be? The Alexander article illogically proposes the thorns are from blackberry vines. Rubus berries are a northern maritime species, so can be readily eliminated from consideration based on geographic habitat and climate; b) proposing berry colors as originating from blood is conspicuous as narrow selective reasoning to make a dubious religious point
3. although the Alexander (Cornell) reference comes from a respected university and faculty member (in Horticulture, not Mythology), it contains no in-line citations and reads like a "soft" summary devoid of editorial rigor and published in a berry consumer newsletter. It is clearly WP:OR and does not satisfy WP:V, yet might be used as a general reference on mythology (since there are unlikely to be good alternate sources), as suggested below

Alternate revision subtitled "Mythology":

Numerous common berries, such as blackberries, elderberries, cranberries and strawberries, are associated with mythological, ethnic and religious beliefs.

--Zefr (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Myths and legends associated with plants are a legitimate topic for an article; this in no way supports the truth or otherwise of the myth or legend. Equally the use of a plant or plant part as a symbol is a legitimate topic. As this is the English Wikipedia, cultural meanings for English-speakers are generally of most importance, although not to the exclusion of others.

However, proper referencing is essential. As an example of how it should be done, see Christmas_decoration#Tree. Sadly, as examples of how it should not be done, you can look at many articles (e.g. Christmas_decoration#Plants, Holly#Culture). A useful and reliable source is Mabberley, D.J. (2008), Mabberley's plant-book : a portable dictionary of plants, their classification and uses, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9780521820714 Peter coxhead (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok so for the 'Strawberries in Winter' just a quick search has turned up that it is almost certainly accurate based on it being very similar to "The Three Little Men in the Woods" by Bros. Grimm, The Russian Version being Strawberries in Snow or The Twelve Months see http://fairytalenewsblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/stories-for-season-monthsstrawberries.html and http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/grimm013.html; Regarding Christ's Crown of thorns being made of brambles that is likewise accurate and there are available other sources for it; It comes via interpreting Judges 9 where the Bramble is made king over the trees instead of the Olive tree see http://biblehub.com/matthew/27-29.htm and http://www.catholictradition.org/Passion/crown-thorns17.htm and https://books.google.com/books?id=oCl4j6HK5nkC&pg=PA288&lpg=PA288&dq=Christ+crown+of+thorns+bramble&source=bl&ots=0kjQmVqP9r&sig=nLTetxxDvy5GaL-9Y5LwPufWzAg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFcQ6AEwDWoVChMI7vanjuSwxwIVyAqSCh02JgBt#v=onepage&q=Christ%20crown%20of%20thorns%20bramble&f=false; Brambles (Rubus) do grown in the Mediterranean climates with blackberries being a common name for a wide variety of bramble berries; The Middle East being on roughly the same latitude as Virginia, north of Texas and California being major producers of Blackberries. Falconjh (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/627214/Growing-raspberries-in-Utah-is-real-challenge.html?pg=all - Raspberries also grow in Utah and Colorado in the wild, news article but also pointed out in the university extension office pages. Wondering about your justification of the climate of where brambles do and do not grow. Falconjh (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Falconjh: sorry, but you need to read some of these sources more carefully. Re the crown of thorns being brambles, none of the sources you give reliably support this. This refers to Paliurus spina-christi; brambles are only mentioned in relation to St Aquinas. The commentary here betrays its inaccuracy when it has "Some variety of the cactus or prickly pear may be meant" – cacti, including prickly pears (Opuntia), are New World plants unknown in the Old World until after Columbus. Re Judges 9: determining the species meant by Hebrew names for plants is known to be exceedingly problematic. Early English translations used names that have often not been supported by later research. Mandrake#In the Bible is an example of the problems that exist; I worked on the more botanical articles on Mandragora species and couldn't find a shred of evidence in reliable sources that dûdã'im, literally "love plant", was a Mandragora species. It's just speculation by translators, whether into Greek or English. So all that really should be said at Mandrake is that there is a tradition that dûdã'im is a mandrake, and nothing else. All the rest belongs at a page on Dûdã'im. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a species of bramble that grows in Palestine. Rubus ulmifolius subsp. sanctus. The WP article sheds little light, but it may be worth following up. see also [1]. Plantsurfer 20:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Biblehub gives many different commentators, so saying that "its inaccuracy" is relatively meaningless in total; the Pulpit Commentaries inaccuracy is betrayed by including new world plants in the old world; which says nothing about "Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible" or any of the additional commentaries given here: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/27-29.htm; If on the berry Wikipedia page we were to prove that Christ existed and had a crown of thrones made of brambles that would certainly be OR; the point can't be to say that it was actually brambles vs. Paliurus spina-Christi if there is anything "actually" to be said in the first place at all, but to say that some people believe it to be the case, identify who those people are as a culture as much as possible, and if we can source anything definitive about the accuracy of the translation of Judges 9 that provides support to that cultural/religious tradition as it relates to rubus then do so. Though anything much than the high level that was there should probably be on some other page different from the general berry one. Falconjh (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, if reliable sources both establish the existence of a belief about berries and the notability of that belief (all sorts of things are believed by some people but notability is another matter) it can be included under the Culture section. I can only say that I haven't been convinced by any of the material so far. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I am still rather confused about the non-notability of Cornell University and am highly tempted at this point to blank out everything in the article which comes directly from Cornell or indirectly from Cornell; which if one follows the sources in Agricultural methods is most everything there regardless of it being directly from Cornell or not; because apparently Cornell is not a reliable source, I should not be required to source check a publication by Cornell University to begin with. That said I notice you aren't arguing anything about the fairy tale any more (whatever we want to call it); That seems notable enough. In terms of Brambles and Christ's crown of thorns going to books might be the way to go, that will require more time than web searches: https://books.google.com/books?id=DOIEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq=brambles+Christ+crown+of+thorns&source=bl&ots=5Ygvu4u2p1&sig=Fd7xKlvMXiWjZd5CH9ksoBlpuAM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBGoVChMIvaXc_4SxxwIVglCICh14MQ4F#v=onepage&q=brambles%20Christ%20crown%20of%20thorns&f=false Though other websites do mention that tradition, as already pointed out http://www.susunweed.com/herbal_ezine/January07/anti-cancer.htm . Falconjh (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Falconjh: I didn't comment on the Cornell source, so I apologize if it seemed that this omission meant that I supported Zefr's comments. Zefr wrote The Cornell author's publication is loosely associated with verifiable sources, so is best defined as WP:OR. This is clearly wrong; WP:OR is what editors shouldn't do, not what sources shouldn't do. It could certainly be used as a supporting source, although with caution because it's not a published book or a journal article, and seems to have a rather informal style. The notability of the material to the Berry article is what concerns me more. It starts ok: "Berries often are used to symbolize many different things in literature, art, mythology, and everyday life. It has been thought that the red color of many berries symbolizes life or the blood of mythical creatures." But after that it seems to be just a random collection of bits of information about individual kinds of berry and berry-bearing plants, rather a coherent account of the meaning of berries in culture, mythology and folklore. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Book Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=WAagnZNb0cAC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=blackberries+blood+of+christ&source=bl&ots=B282Aibexz&sig=gDg6L8rm0g2UpPEf-7EzXS07l1w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEsQ6AEwB2oVChMI36KBvuKyxwIVCJqICh16mQHD#v=onepage&q=blackberries%20blood%20of%20christ&f=false Falconjh (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I would certainly add to the Blackberry article based on this, but is it really relevant to Berry? I would have thought that something more generic was more appropriate – material that applied to more than one berry, if not generically. There are good sources, for example, for the belief that holly berries symbolically represent Christ's blood, but this is surely only relevant to Holly, not to Berry. Maybe there isn't anything really generic, and a collection of well-sourced bits is all that can be provided, but each one is then open to the challenge "is it notable to Berry based on reliable sources?" Peter coxhead (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

In terms of Finland, there is this college research paper/translation project that is well sourced and covers berries in general: https://www15.uta.fi/FAST/FIN/A14PAPS/si-berry.pdf; It seems that we might be able to say something like that: "In many myths and religious tales berries represent blood" and give some specific examples so that entire sentence has multiple sources. Same with saying berries are often symbolic of beauty and youth. Falconjh (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Removing content

This isn't completely related to the mythology section, but a similar section was deleted at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berry&curid=52948&diff=676235198&oldid=676234510 about differences between the botanical definition and the colloquial one. I agree that is was slightly too long, but at the same time I think we should have instead just summarized it. (It's on my to do list, but haven't gotten to it yet..)-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It was both too long and far too technically worded. So I did do exactly what you suggest, namely summarized it in less technical language at Berry#Botanical definition in a long series of edits after the one you linked above. It needs some references added based on those at Berry (botany). Peter coxhead (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I added the multiple image and the footer to help non-botanists. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit notice?

There seems to be quite regular edits from users/IPs thinking this is the berry (botany) article. Should we put in an wp:edit notice to reiterate that the context is "everyday language", not botany? E.g.

- Evad37 [talk] 05:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, although it is covered in the second paragraph :-/ Qzd (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added a page notice, which may or may not help. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The redirects in the article make for poor navigation

When reading the page in the section fruit by climate when you click a link to a species it directs you to the alphabetical list where you can click the link to the article on that fruit.

This is very annoying and gives poor navigation, especially on a mobile since if you want to read solely about fruits in a particular climate you end up at an alphabetical list with fruits from all climates. On a mobile / cell phone at least (haven't tried on PC yet) you then lose your place in the list which you were actually looking at and interested in, namely that about a certain climate and can't navigate back without scrolling through the incredibly long alphabetical list. Why the need for the redirects to the alphabetical list? Why wouldn't straightforward links to the actual page on the fruit be sufficient? The redirects seem to add a complicated layer of navigation that doesn't need to be there.

Kentynet (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Kentynet (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Berry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111120221956/http://waynesword.palomar.edu/fruitid1.htm to http://waynesword.palomar.edu/fruitid1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906013154/http://www.mofga.org/Publications/MaineOrganicFarmerGardener/Spring2012/Strawberries/tabid/2136/Default.aspx to http://www.mofga.org/Publications/MaineOrganicFarmerGardener/Spring2012/Strawberries/tabid/2136/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Both ok. --Zefr (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Strawberries aren't berries

101.166.91.157 (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC) The introduction says that 'some common examples are strawberries...' It's wrong. Strawberries, despite their name, aren't actually berries because they have their seeds on the outside. I can't edit it for some reason, so I can't rectify that myself. Can someone else come by and fix it? Cheers. *Edit* Nope never mind, I didn't see that it wasn't the botanical term. Still though, can someone include the fact that some 'berries' aren't actually berries? It could inform some people of the misconception. Plus, it's triggering me so hard.

This is already covered in the second paragraph of the lead, and in the "Botanical definition" section - Evad37 [talk] 08:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

But the lead image of the article shows some examples of "berries" that don't fit the botanical definition (e.g. blueberries and currants). That could be confusing for readers. Plus the lead paragraph should be reworded to make it immediately clear that there is a distinction between the botanical and common usage of the term berry. Although I guess it does start with "In everyday language" — but that's a bit of a weird way to put it. CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Crocodilesareforwimps: so how else would you put it? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Would suggest something succinct like the article for Nut (fruit). Starts off with the botanical definition and mentions that in "general usage" (which is already better than "everyday language") there are things that are called nuts but don't fit the botanical definition.CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Berry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150821083825/http://www.ext.colostate.edu/mg/Gardennotes/763.html to http://www.ext.colostate.edu/mg/Gardennotes/763.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Berry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150820072015/http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/emeril-lagasse/raspberry-sauce-recipe.html to http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/emeril-lagasse/raspberry-sauce-recipe.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150803121035/http://brambleberriesintherain.com/2011/09/dyeing-with-blackberries/ to http://brambleberriesintherain.com/2011/09/dyeing-with-blackberries/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

6 million dollars?

One would expect an annual figure, but this clearly isn't. Is it an error for 6 billion, or an average daily figure, or something else? Lavateraguy (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

"Epigynous berries(false berries)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Epigynous berries(false berries). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2021

Change 'The musky-flavored strawberry began to be grown in European gardens in the late 16th century.' to 'The musk strawberry, also known as the hautbois strawberry, began to be grown in European gardens in the late 16th century.' with a link to the 'musk strawberry' article on 'musk strawberry' 85.19.187.26 (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Single flower

The article says in two places that berries form from the ovary of a single flower. Are there plants on which each fruit forms from the ovaries of multiple flowers? Or from a single ovary shared be multiple flowers? I'm trying to figure out what's added by "single" that would be missing if we removed it. Largoplazo (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Aggregate fruits form from multiple ovaries in a single flower while multiple fruits form from multiple flowers. Confusingly, some of the most recognizable aggregate and multiple fruits are called "berries" in the colloquial sense, but not the botanical sense. A raspberry is an aggregate fruit and a mulberry is a multiple fruit. --Khajidha (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Um, wow, OK! That is fascinating. Thanks for the information! Largoplazo (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Berries:- Strawberries, Raspberries, Blackberries are NOT berries. Bananas and tomatoes are. Berries are classified as fruits that have pips inside the fruit.

Wrongful information given. Feeby08 (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

This article references both the common usage and Berry (botany). Invasive Spices (talk) 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2022

Remove Strawberries and raspberries from the list of berries, as on their respective pages it clearly states they are not botanically berries. 82.8.185.68 (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Berry (botany) covers berries that are specifically botanical berries. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a contradiction between the first and second paragraph.

The first paragraph says "Common examples [of berries] are strawberries, raspberries,... blackberries ..." while the second says "Fruits commonly considered berries but excluded by the botanical definition include strawberries, raspberries, and blackberries". I don't think these fruits should be listed as common berries when the article later states that they don't belong. Taiga Engel (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)