Talk:Cucurbita/Archive 1

Crookneck & butternut

Cucurbita moschata is described as "crookneck squash" but redirects to Butternut squash. Yellow crookneck squash has its own article. I guess they might be the same species, but it needs to be clarified. --Singkong2005 ^talk 12:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected this, and also created a new page for Cucurbita moschata. Yellow crookneck squash is of many varieties of Cucurbita pepo (which I've also given a new page). -Madeleine 19:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

Proposed etymology for cucurbitus: L. cucu(s)=?(from Gr. κόκκος=kernel, seed, grain, berry)? + orb(is)=sphere, globe round, circle + it(us)=a going (genative, fourth declension).Nimbvs (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Nimbvs

Old World Origins of Cucurbita

All the various articles about cucurbita indicate probable American origins. Then how come the word cucurbita is latin and cucurbita feature prominently in extant ancient Roman recipes? Do we know which particular cucurbitacea was cooked by the ancient Romans?

---

I also have been reading Roman cookbooks and finding reference to Cucurbitas. Culinary websites say that the Romans ate green Chinese squash. Asians have squash plants in their cuisine (chinese and japanese squash are easily found on google). It seems like there's no reference to these plants within Wikipedia, at least the English site... Jbailyn (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)jbailyn

This has been shown to be the problem of translators who used "pumpkin" instead of "gourd". Seneca et al were using old world gourds not new world gourds. HalfGig (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Post-GA development

How about this for the table? It's meant as a proof of concept so feel free to tweak it - I'm sure better images could be found. mgiganteus1 (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Common name	Botanical name	Image	Description
Acorn	C. pepo var. turbinata		winter squash, both a shrubby and creeping plant, obovoid or conical shape, pointed at the apex and with longitudinal grooves, ex: Acorn squash
Cocozzelle	C. pepo var. Ionga		summer squash, long round slender fruit that is slightly bulbous at the apex, similar to fastigata, ex: Cocozelle von tripolis
Crookneck	C. pepo var. torticollia		summer squash, shrubby plant, with yellow, golden, or white fruit which is curved at the ends and generally has a verrucose (wart-covered) rind, ex: Yellow crookneck squash
Pumpkin	C. pepo var. pepo		winter squash, creeping plant, round or oval shape and round or flat on the ends, ex: Pumpkin; includes C. pepo subsp. pepo var. styriaca, used for Styrian pumpkin seed oil
Scallop	C. pepo var. clypeata; called C. melopepo by Linnaeus)		summer squash, prefers half-shrubby habitat, flat or slightly discoidal shape, with undulations or equatorial edges, ex: Pattypan squash
Straightneck	C. pepo var. recticollis		summer squash, shrubby plant, with yellow or golden fruit and verrucose rind, similar to var. torticollia, ex: Yellow summer squash
Vegetable marrow	C. pepo var. fastigata		summer and winter squashes, creeper traits and a semi-shrub, cream to dark green color, short round fruit with a slightly broad apex, ex: Spaghetti squash (a winter variety)
Zucchini	C. pepo var. cylindrica		summer squash, presently the most common group of cultivars, origin is recent (19th century), semi-shrubby, cylindrical fruit with a mostly consistent diameter, similar to fastigata, ex: Zucchini
Ornamental gourds	C. pepo var. ovifera		non-edible, field pumpkins closely related to C. texana, vine habitat, thin stems, small leaves, three sub-groups: C. pepo var. ovifera (egg-shaped, pear-shaped), C. pepo var. aurantia (orange color), and C. pepo var. verrucosa (round warty gourds), ornamental gourds found in Texas and called var. texana and ornamental gourds found outside of Texas (Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana) are called var. ozarkana.

Very nice, concept proven. I made the upright pumpkin image smaller so its area is similar to the other images'.Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I like it to. I centered the pumpkin. Put it in the article. Added footnotes. Added more photos. HalfGig (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cucurbita/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I will be pleased to review this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Readability excellent. Copyright - passes spotchecks. Spelling: ok. Grammar: ok.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead: maybe move refs into body of article;ok; weasel: maybe remove 'very';ok; fiction: n/a; lists: maybe use tables, see below. Probably none of these are showstoppers.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	ok
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	ok.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No sign of it.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Informative article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Clear and well-focused, generally easy to read.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No sign of bias.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No sign of edit-warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images from Commons
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	ok
	7. Overall assessment.	An interesting, well-written and enjoyable article and a worthy GA. It may require care with lists and medical claims, and a separate section on constituents, for progress to FA.

Comments

• The image from Les Grandes Heures d'Anne de Bretagne should be so named, with dates. BTW not sure that a 'book of hours' is exactly a 'prayer book' as it contains a mix of materials including psalms; perhaps 'devotional book' would be better?
  • Done. HalfGig (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• There are refs in the lead (where they're generally not needed); these might be better in 'History and domestication' where it's not clear which ref applies to the first two sentences - perhaps refs 1,2,3 are relevant there?
  • Done. HalfGig (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Perhaps best to avoid intensifiers like 'very', as in 'very important source of human food'.
  • Cut all "very" instances.HalfGig (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• I guess the list of 'Species' is adequately cited with the 3 refs in the leading sentence. It's perhaps less clear in 'Habitat and distribution' which ref applies to which variety/cultivar as there are four refs in the leading sentence and more in the list. Perhaps a table layout would make it clearer, and the column layout could be used to show small images alongside the varieties, as well as descriptions and references?
  • I'll need help with tables.HalfGig (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• 'leaves alternately helically arranged on the stem'. Is that different from 'alternate'? Not totally clear - maybe provide a brief gloss or wikilink.
  • Cut "helically". HalfGig (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• 'Other specimens can weigh over 300 kg...' - "Other" means "cultivated"?
  • Changed. HalfGig (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• 'These studies also reported the genus had "about 27" total species.' Both studies provided the same quote?
  • I reworded this. HalfGig (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• 'Cucurbitin is found in Cucurbita seeds.' Perhaps mention what it is used for; and is it bitter and toxic like Cucurbitacin or what?
  • Will be fixed in 5-10 minutes. HalfGig (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• treating diabetes - medical claims need to be handled very carefully. Which type of diabetes? Perhaps this claim should be supported by a quotation in the relevant citation (|quote="..."). Ref 25 does not mention diabetes so perhaps the tag needs to be moved earlier in the sentence.
  • in this ref, it says "reduce blood sugar", page 390, article changed. HalfGig (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• In this article the statement in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the description states that members of this genus "[require] adequate water." That statement isn't very useful: all plants "require adequate water." Martel DuVigneaud (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• done. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Do we need Squash (plant)?

Now that this article is so good, do we really need the separate Squash (plant) article? What does it add? In what way is it a different topic? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Good point. It should redirect here. I did just add 4 bits of info from it to this article; but I agree, it's redundant and woefully under-referenced. It's also wrong on a few points.HalfGig (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Support merge. Nothing significant at Squash (plant) that isn't already here. ʍw 00:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing significant? The article has 1) some informative illustrations with a dish of Ukoy and a ceramic from 300 AD which should go into the history, in fact I'll copy it now; 2) a table of the nutrients in a squash; 3) references which are different from those in Cucurbita, so very possibly of some value. But a merge is clearly sensible, if properly conducted. I would strenuously oppose an instant redirect without intelligent merging. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I merged several bits of info and references last night--so in my view, the merge is already done. On my computer the images you added, especially the ukoy, throw off the display of the info. I did think of the nutrition chart; but if that is added, we'd have to cut out some photos as that would throw off the display quite a bit. I thought it'd be better to add that to the winter/summer squash articles. HalfGig (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll admit I was looking primarily at the text (and even then, may have missed something). More references never hurt, but the images are debatable (always are), and the nutrition table should go to summer squash, if it goes anywhere. I didn't mean to suggest Squash (plant) should be redirected immediately without a thorough examination for anything that could be transferred to this and related articles; I'm not sure that's ever a good idea. ʍw 11:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for linking to all those references I added last night. I am now looking at this on a different computer and the layout looks better but the ukoy photo is still a problem. Either it needs to be cut or lots of info added to uses. HalfGig (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like we're all basically in agreement. Yes, the nutrients could go to summer squash to avoid, err, squashing up this article too much . The Ukoy can't be more than the smallest problem (why do people maximise articles, must make the lines of text horribly long?) but yes, the right answer is to add more on the many uses of this versatile family - if it's ever to go to FA it will certainly need more on that subject, with subsections on human food, animals, medicinal uses and so forth. I could almost add subsection headings now. ;-) Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Redirect made. HalfGig (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Great work! Peter coxhead (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Since the article now includes edible and useful squashes, but is not limited to them, it must be made clear that the group includes far more than 5 edible species. I've added a few words to the lead (and bolded the redirect target) but suspect that a bit more needs to be said in the body of the article about the variety of species, especially those that are not edible squashes. Indeed the non-edible genera seem to get rather short shrift at the moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I/we are far from done. I'm working Sasata's comments at the PR right now. The problem with the non-domesticated species is that is far less info available on them. HalfGig talk 20:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, and it's coming along really nicely. I just feel we need to say they exist, and if not a lot is known, to say that too. We could e.g. describe the different generaspecies briefly, how they differ etc, and pop in what few facts are known about each of 'em. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'd like to finish Sasata's comments first, which may take awhile, then move onto these comments. You said different genera, did you mean different species? HalfGig talk 23:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Why aren't we titled Squash here?

Yes there is some very minor & very localized confusion on squash vs pumpkin, especially on the big cultivars that look like a pumpkin, but if you were to go to any english speaking region anywhere that grows these, show them a butternut squash, a zucchini, and a pumpkin, ask them "what single group do all of these belong to?", virtually everywhere you would be told "squash". Which would help explain why squash has about 60:1 the Google hits over Cucurbita. I am always arguing to keep the scientific name on these discussions, but this is truly one where the plant has, per WP:FLORA an "agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany; e.g. rose, apple, watermelon". Is there something I am missing here, before I formalize a name-change discussion?
Also, since Squash now redirects to a project page for the sport, we should probably have a hatnote on this page with a link to Squash (sport). --Tom Hulse (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Totally disagree. We should keep the scientific name. Squash should disambiguate to the sport and the plant genus. It in no way should like to a wikiproject. The FLORA rules contradict the PLANT rules. We should follow WP:PLANT. A classic case of why is why "Stinging nettle" got moved to Urtica dioica, see the talk page. Besides, "squash" does not cover the topic. "Squash" does not include pumpkins and ornamental gourds, which are also Cucurbita. And see the thread section just above this one, Squash (plant) just got redirected to this Cucurbita article. HalfGig talk 02:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

HalfGig, WP:PLANTS, by it's own admission, is a page of "suggestions" by plant editors. It is not policy. It is not a guideline. Not only that, but it does not contradict WP:FLORA on article titles, since all it does on that subject is refer you to directly to WP:FLORA. Are you confusing plant naming conventions with plant article naming conventions? Also, policy always trumps guidelines and especially trumps project pages/essays/info pages, etc. The policy at WP:MOSAT is a locked-in endorsement of WP:FLORA for plants. That's the way it's always done at Wikipedia, please, read the guideline: "Scientific names are to be used as article titles in all cases except when a plant has an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany; e.g. rose, apple, watermelon." It is true in this case that squash is more important in at least two of these fields than it is in botany, just like rose, apple, & watermelon.
It is my strong impression that Squash does include all of Cucurbita, including the ornamentals (C. pepo var. ovifera), e.g. see the list of many common names for these at GRIN, most of which have the word "squash" in them. Also, a very authoritative source for common usage are the dictionaries. See Merriam Webster, Oxford World English, & Oxford American English, all of which say that squash is being used as directly equal to Cucurbita. --Tom Hulse (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Then why are so many articles using the scientific name? This article is about the genus, the name of which is Cucurbita, not "squash". To me calling it what it is, Cucurbita is common sense. I think you are being too rule bound. You ignore several poionts I made. This article has been here since 2002, why are you just now interested in changing the title. I still do not agree with you at all. Regards. HalfGig talk 10:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to answer each of points:

• So many articles use the scientific name because that is Wikipedia policy, but there are clear exceptions that all plant editors know about, like Rose, Apple, and Watermelon; it's part of the policy. It's how it is done here, I didn't make the policy, consensus of plant editors did. This is not the place to change a fixed policy.
• This article is not about a genus name Cucurbita excluding squash. Cucurbita is squash. They are the same. I agree calling it what it is makes common sense. It is squash. The wording in the article that uses "Cucubita" over & over is awkward. For instance this sentence: "Cucurbita began to spread to other parts of the world after Christopher Columbus's arrival in the New World in 1492. That name wasn't even used then, it was still hundreds of years from being invented.
• Another perspective on "rule bound", or pedantic, might be to look at who wants to keep the article at the relatively unknown scientific name, because they misunderstand a rule about when to use scientific names; even when the common name is used on Google 60:1 more often.
• I am just now interested in this article because it just came to my attention, Wikipedia is big. What is your point? Are you having feelings of ownership?
• Sorry I missed a point above. If I could trouble you to point it out again I would be glad to address it. :) I do certainly agree with you that Squash should not redirect straight to a sport project page like it does now.
  

Since the policy is fixed, the only way I see this change not happening is if you can make a case about Cucurbita not being equal to squash. I gave you some solid sources about useage (OED, Merriam, GRIN). I know you can find anecdotes of individuals using different interpretations of squash, but you would need multiple sources who directly address the controversy (if there is one) with authority. --Tom Hulse (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The genus is Cucurbita not squash. I don't own it, but I think you do though you seem to have never edited it. So feel free to edit on it all you want, all the way from this to its current state. HalfGig talk 17:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I think "squash" is too imprecise a term for the scope of the content in the article. If you really feel it should be renamed, please start a requested move. It'll be important to make sure all the appropriate Wikiprojects are notified. Zad68 18:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

HalfGig, your edit was vandalism (diff) and I've reverted it. If you have a problem with me, please keep it here. There is no need to rape the article page to take out your frustration on someone else. C'mon, lets get back to discussing the best way to improve the article. I know you disagree with me, but please consider that my intentions are honorable. I'd be glad hear what you have to say about the article. :) --Tom Hulse (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Nah, I'm done with wiki and the article. All yours. You could care less about the article and what I have to say about it. And you guys wonder why the rest of the world thinks wikipedia is totally effed up and dysfunctional. HalfGig talk 18:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. I hope you reconsider. I do care about the article, that's why I'm here. And I do care about your opinion, that's why I'm asking for a discussion before we even have a formal discussion before we ever change anything. --Tom Hulse (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Such harsh language as Tom Hulse used does not lend credance to a claim of honourable intentions! Why would anyone care to spend their time in debate with such a barbaric individual? Yet another excellent editor is driven away from wikipedia. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Sminthopsis, I responded in the tone I was spoken to. Lighten up, dude. Nothing I said rose to the level of a personal attack, like calling someone dishonorable like you just did. You can't do that here, knock it off. Comment on the content, not the contributor. I do care about the article and what I perceive to be awkward use of the genus name as though it were a common term, and I am open to other opinions, as long as they're within WP policy, like Peter's below. --Tom Hulse (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Zad, do you have any sources for that? The OED & Merriam Webster seem to disagree with you, and quality sources like GRIN show that even the ornamentals are commonly reffered to as squash. So could you be more specific? What taxon(s) do you think are not squash? --Tom Hulse (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The genus Cucurbita is not the same as "squash".

1. Look at the list of species at Cucurbita#Species. Some are called "gourds"; others are wild species with no common name at all.
2. What I call "courgettes" (and other English speakers call "zucchini") and what I call "marrows" are Cucurbita cultivars which are not called "squashes" – at least not by those who call them by these names.
3. Dictionaries are very poor sources for botanical information. Dictionary compilers report what they believe to be common uses. Very often these are simply wrong.
4. @Tom Hulse: your GRIN reference is wrong; it links to C. pepo not the genus. For Cucurbita the correct link is this. It gives "pumpkin" and "squash" as common names for the genus, which is correct, in that many species in the genus have common names including either "pumpkin" or "squash". However, this isn't reversible; neither "pumpkin" nor "squash" individually nor together cover the whole of the genus. Adding "gourd" would give you most species and cultivars, but still not all. Cucurbita = pumpkin + squash + gourd + courgette/zucchini + marrow + ... + some wild species.
5. The Cucurbita-related articles were a total muddled mess until User:HalfGig's recent sterling work (with some help from others). A large part of the original muddle was caused by editors using English names in inconsistent ways, so that articles overlapped or had incorrect information in them. This has been sorted out based on consensus – see e.g. the discussion at #Do we need Squash (plant)? There are others elsewhere; see also Talk:Pumpkin.
6. The article has been through a successful GA review at this title. If the title were changed to an inaccurate one, then I would certainly immediately challenge the article's GA status. This is a GA as an article about the genus; it would not be as an article about "squash". An article called "squash" would have to be about those particular cultivars of those particular species of Cucurbita which are unambiguously included in this description.
7. If there were a "squash" article, there would still need to be an article at the genus name which covered the genus as a whole. This would be pointless duplication – as was the case before HalfGig's work.

I entirely understand HalfGig's frustration. There seems to be a determined view that English names must be used at all costs, even when they clearly fail the precision test of WP:AT. Again and again the acceptance of this view has resulted in muddle and confusion whenever (as is very common) the English names do not relate in a 1:1 fashion to a genus, species, cultivar group or cultivar. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Peter, I'll take them one at a time:  :)

1. Could you name one of the specific species you think aren't a squash? It can be a gourd and still be a squash. All of the gourds within Cucurbita are squash, e.g. C. pepo var. ovifera.
2. Even though it is a zucchini, it is still a squash (per very good sources for common usage). Even though a coyote may look different than a domesticated dog, it is still truly a dog.
3. I don't believe we can say that botanical/scientific info is relevant on this narrow issue. Instead this question is all about common usage on how "squash" is commonly used (only narrowly for individual species, or also for the larger Cucurbita genus). Dictionaries are an excellent source for that, since that is their sole purpose and all they do... they define words based on current usage. They are a measurer or barometer of widespread current usage; better than me or you or any individual author. I know of no better source for current common usage, do you?
4. My GRIN link is actually correct. I linked to an example species I thought you might think is the hardest one to prove are squash, the ornamental gourds. You'll see there that most of the common names for ornamental gourds actually have "squash" in them. I didn't use it as proof, but your interpretation of what GRIN means when it says that squash is a common name for Cucurbita is different than their intent. Though imperfect, they do intend to list common names for only direct equivalent taxa, not to include all common names of all subordinate taxa.
5. I didn't see anything in your talk links, especially consensus, that would rule out this name change. Instead I see that the squash article was no longer needed since there is nothing distinctively different about "squash" vs "Cucurbita" that warrants a separate article. To me that looks like the opposite of making your point, since I am saying they're the same and you are saying they're different. Am I missing something? If squash were truly different than Cucurbita, then it would warrant its own article, just like Pumpkin, but consensus said otherwise.
6. Your argument about the GA status is only true if "squash" does not equal Cucurbita. You state your personal opinion on this as though it were an undisputed fact. You can see that there are reliable sources that disagree with you, so do you have some as well?
7. Point 7 is also only true if "squash" does not equal Cucurbita. We need to resolve that first with sources.

Growing up, my mother taught me that zucchini is a type of squash, but your mother perhaps taught you that a courgette was not one of the squashes. Neither is "wrong", but which is the common view? I'm willing to consider that I'm in the minority, but I did show good references, including British English, so do you think you ought to as well? --Tom Hulse (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue is whether "squash" is a sufficiently precise term to designate all species, cultivar groups and cultivars of Cucurbita. You assert that it is; I assert, with arguments, that it isn't.

Consider first one of your arguments; a key one for me. Even though a coyote may look different than a domesticated dog, it is still truly a dog. Ordinary language uses words in a highly context-dependent way. "Dog" may mean a domestic dog; one of a closely related set of species within the genus Canis; the genus itself; or the family Canidae. So saying that a coyote is "truly" a dog is correct if, and only if, one particular meaning of "dog" is taken. If "coyote" were in an unqualified sense truly the same as "dog", either could be used as an article title. However, this isn't the case, and couldn't be. The very broad sense of "dog" isn't suitable for an article title and isn't used as such. Nor is the very broad sense of "cat". A coyote is a dog, but a Coyote is not a Dog. "Cat" is used in the same way. A lion is a cat, but a Lion is not a Cat. The same is the case here. "Squash" in the broad sense isn't a good choice for the title of an encyclopedia article. It isn't fully inclusive and has different meanings in different contexts and in different English-speaking countries.

To return to GRIN, note again that GRIN does not say that the common name of the genus is "squash". It says "pumpkin, squash". Please look again at GRIN; I don't think you can have looked at all the species. The GRIN entry for Cucurbita argyrosperma gives five English names, none of them including the word "squash". The GRIN entry for Cucurbita cordata gives one English name, using the word "gourd". It simply isn't true that GRIN supports the idea that "squash" alone is equivalent to Cucurbita.

If Wikipedia allowed "or" titles, you could argue for "Squash, pumpkin or gourd" as the equivalent to Cucurbita, and this would be more difficult to resist. But "squash" alone is demonstrably not equivalent to the genus, without even needing to return to the issue of whether a courgette or marrow would ever be called a squash in the UK. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 'Squash' isn't a good name for all members of this genus, as people just don't generally call (bitter) gourds squashes. Some genera have English names that suit them well, others don't. This article is rightly called Cucurbita, and no other title would be as good. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Peter modestly used two examples of Cucurbita not called "squashes" from GRIN. Not including those with no common name mentioned, here are more:

Cucurbita foetidissima
Cucurbita lundelliana
Cucurbita okeechobeensis
Cucurbita palmata
Cucurbita radicans

Hamamelis (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, hold up with the GRIN stuff! :) I didn't claim GRIN says Cucurbita=squash. Look at the second post in in this discussion. He claimed ornamental gourds are not squash. I merely provided specific proof that this was false at the GRIN link I gave. On the main GRIN Cucurbita page, that you brought up, not me, I was only saying that you were misinterpreting it, not that the page proves anything (I never linked to it). Both of you are now misinterpreting it again by claiming that an absence of common names at a GRIN species page indicates the genus can't have the common name squash. C'mon, you could think of a dozen examples yourself to counter that if you wanted. Try the pine trees. Pinus maximartinezii has no common names listed at GRIN, but that doesn't prove that the genus Pinus does not equal "pine". That would be silly.

You make a good point re: coyote/dog. I disagree with the way Wikipedia has treated it, since the genus article says wolves & coyotes are part of true dogs, and the Dog article is clear it is only talking about the domesticated dog, not all dogs; but admittedly my opinion on that particular one is irrelevant compared to the consensus they must have fought over for years.

The Zucchini (courgette) page here at Wikipedia disagrees with you whether they are squash. So does the last version of our former Squash (plant) article. Same for Marrows.

Chiswick, it may be true that bitter gourds aren't called squash, but that's because they also aren't in Cucurbita; they're in the closely related Momordica.

Does anyone have any good sources that directly address what a squash is, if it is different than Cucurbita, and if my Merriam Webster & OED sources are wrong? I'm saying squash precisely equates to Cucurbita, and satisfies precision at WP:AT. How can you say that isn't true when no one else has even stated what they think "squash" is, let alone prove it with sources. --Tom Hulse (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the thing with virtually all common names, they just aren't precise, really almost ever. "Horse apples" are neither horses nor apples, nor horse's apples (since they're not apples at all). If some Cucurbita aren't called squash in English common names, then that in itself would be confusing, at the very least to people who don't have English as their first language. "Gourd" can also be equal to Cucurbita in some species; the same goes with "cushaw". "Coyote-melon" = one Cucurbita (C. palmata). Ask someone who is familiar with only this species and they might say it's a kind of melon. Maybe it is. It is also most certainly Cucurbita, but maybe not a squash. I think most would agree that "squash" (without sources to back me up) are some Cucurbita, but not all. If Cucurbita is, in some respects, the sum of all its parts (i.e. species, on down) then Cucurbita cannot be definitively "squash". Using the name Cucurbita is, without doubt, the most accurate, used-in-reliable-sources name to use for the genus. I would hazard a guess that most sources that refer to squash are not referring to Cucurbita as a whole, but those that are squash-like, and not melon-like, or gourd-like, etc. I really truly believe reliance on common names for species and genera article titles, in most cases save a few, is more a cause of confusion than anything else—the very thing most proponents of common names for article titles are trying to avert. Hamamelis (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. We had the same problem over what a pumpkin is. Basically it seems to be any cultivated Cucurbita which looks like a pumpkin, i.e. is largish, round and orange, or which is eaten as "pumpkin" when so-called by the canning companies.

Tom, you seem to reject the evidence that doesn't fit your prior view. Look at Category:Pinus. All the non-redirect English names for pines use the word "pine". We've just shown you that if there were articles on each species of Cucurbita, and if these articles were at one of the English names in GRIN (where these exist), some would include the word "squash", some "pumpkin", some "gourd". It's perfectly clear that "pine" = Pinus. It's equally clear that the same isn't true in GRIN for "squash" and Cucurbita. GRIN is important, as a North American source, because it does seem to be the case that "squash" is used more inclusively there. If you want a British source, see this RHS list. The "cucurbits" there are described as "Marrows, courgettes and squash". If "squash" refers to all Cucurbita species, this is nonsense; it's like writing "Poodles, spaniels and dogs".

What are "squash", you ask? They are those species and cultivars of Cucurbita that reliable sources describe by this name. Different reliable sources, particularly from different countries, use different criteria, so if you make a list based on GRIN you'll get a different set from a list based on the RHS or other UK sources. This is why it would be difficult (although possible) to have a genus article at Cucurbita and another "food" article at "Squash (plant)" (just as we have one at Pumpkin although this is also a somewhat fuzzy term). The "Squash (plant)" article would cover fewer entities than the Cucurbita article. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Tom, yes, I have a source. One authoritative reliable source which demonstrates that squash isn't equivalent to Cucurbita is the Encyclopedia Britannica. Their article on squash states that a squash is a plant fruit; their content covering Cucurbita describes it as a plant genus covering 13 species. They are not equivalent terms. Zad68 14:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

However, this isn't really quite the issue. It's a standard convention in English to call the plants by the same name as the fruit, so "banana", for example, primarily refers to the fruit, but you can say "bananas grow from corms" meaning "banana plants grow from corms". Peter coxhead (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

But I'm answering a different question than the one you are addressing. Tom was asking for a reliable source that says the two aren't equivalent; I provided one. It's certainly true that editors here know squash can refer to one of several plants that produce squash fruits, but the source I'm citing does not say that. The request is to base the argument purely in reliable sourcing and policy, and that's usually a reasonable request on Wikipedia. So, I've provided an authoritative reliable source that shows they're not equivalent terms, and therefore the rename suggestion shouldn't be acted on. Zad68 18:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Zad, a heartfelt "thank you!" for using sources. I do have to agree with Peter, though, that many plants commonly use the same name as their fruit. The readers are able to easily assume you are speaking of either or both, based on context; and so a source that doesn't clearly delineate fruit from plant does not prove anything. For instance see Avocado at Encyclopedia Britannica (and many others there) that also defines the article title as fruit, but no one would say that article doesn't also apply to the plant. In fact, I think Peter may be rolling his eyes, lol, since you provided another great source for me. In the terms we're speaking of here it equates squash to "any of" Cucurbita. So please add it to my list.

Peter, could you be more clear on what your point is with the Pinus categories? I'm sorry, I don't see anything there that supports your view. On the GRIN thing, no it is not true I'm just ad-hoc rejecting arguments because they 'don't fit my prior view'. Instead you were using a (accidental?) straw man argument when you said "It simply isn't true that GRIN supports the idea that "squash" alone is equivalent to Cucurbita". I never claimed it did because I know it's a poor source on that question. I only used GRIN to prove a narrow point (ornamental gourds in Cucurbita are squash). You misread, I didn't reject evidence. You, however, are still wrongly using GRIN to infer that the absence of a common name at GRIN is somehow proof that the name can't apply. Do you really think GRIN is that exhaustive, to prove something with an absence? You should really know better. Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding, I did reread it several times.
At your RHS source, please notice the "(butternut)" modifier you left out. So really they are listing marrows, courgettes and butternut squash. It's ok for only some of the species to incorporate the common name of the genus. So in your dog example, it's more like saying "Poodles, Spaniels and Portuguese Water Dogs". That makes more sense. On the "What are squash" question, you claim that different sources will give you a different list of species, is that right? So could you please give me those sources to compare with mine? Neither your RHS link nor GRIN pretend to define squash at all. You would have to do some fantastical stretching of facts & inference to get a squash definition from links you have shown.
Hamamelis, there is no imprecision unless you show it with sources. I'm willing to change 180 degrees instantly if you can show better sources than Merriam Webster, OED, & Encyclopedia Britannica on common usage.--Tom Hulse (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

1. You must be looking at a different RHS document that the one I linked. Its title is "RHS AWARD OF GARDEN MERIT Marrows, courgettes & squash 2011". It then has subsections "Courgette", "Marrow", "Squash (butternut)" and "Squash (summer)". This cannot possibly be read as claiming that the RHS considers courgettes and marrows as included in squashes. The RHS would have had to have had the main title "Marrows, courgettes and other squashes" and then the subsections "Squash (courgette)", "Squash (marrow)", "Squash (butternut)" and "Squash (summer)" to show that the RHS here considers courgettes and marrows to be squashes. (It actually uses the word "cucurbit" as the umbrella term for all cultivated Cucurbita.) Your dog example is not at all the same and is quite misleading.
2. Let me try once more to explain the pine versus squash example, which seems quite clear to me. Forget completely that you ever referenced GRIN and start from the beginning. If we make a list of the English names of the species of Pinus, based on those in Category:Pinus, they all include the word "pine". Where Pinus species have an English name made up of a qualifier and a head noun, the head noun is "pine". If we make a list of the English names of the species of Cucurbita given in GRIN, they will not all include the word "squash". Some will include the word "pumpkin", some "cushaw", some "gourd". Where Cucurbita species have an English name made up of a qualifier and a head noun, the head noun is not always "squash". On this basis, I conclude that whereas it is reasonable to equate Pinus with "pine", it is not reasonable to equate Cucurbita with "squash".

A final point, since I really have nothing further to add if you don't accept these arguments. In determining precision, it's not enough to show that some reliable sources equate "X" and "Y". You have to show that the great majority of reliable sources equate "X" and "Y" so that there is no serious likelihood of confusion. The two examples given above show that there is significant non-equivalence of Cucurbita and "squash" in reliable sources, regardless of whether other sources consider them the same. Neither on the basis of GRIN's English names for species nor on the usage of the RHS would I expect every species and cultivar of Cucurbita to be covered at "squash". Peter coxhead (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks as though we will never all agree here. However, there is visibly no mandate for changing this article from its current title, and for what it's worth a clear majority against, whatever the arguments on all sides. Therefore the current title must remain. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Cheswick, it's an interesting conversation that still has plenty to go (we still need to see where this claimed imprecision is), no need to rush to close it. I would have thought that instead you might have acknowledged the blatant error of your previous post.

Peter, thank you, I see now I missed the heading, however the modifiers in the content of the article (butternut, summer, etc.) still carry some weight of the argument I made before. This is an extremely oblique angle to stretch a mere inference of a squash definition. They could have meant either way, but to see more clearly what they really meant, simply read the squash page there. Look especially at the "harvest" and "grow" tabs, where it is clear that these are all part of the local definition of squash; just as the other major, reliable sources I quoted are clear about, including the Wikipedia articles for those fruit, which say that courgettes, pumpkins, and marrows are squash. To be clear, I think that is a casual gardening site not intending to make any statement like "squash is...", so I don't consider it a source for me; only, my link shows it does not support the idea you put forth.

Thank you also for helping me understand your Pinus argument. Holly (Ilex), and its species Ilex glabra (winterberry, gallberry, inkberry) is one example (along with many others) that completely defeats this line of reasoning. Just because some of the species have common names different from the genus common name does make that genus common name imprecise.

Still I'm suprised no one has even come up with one competing definition of squash? I will certainly grant you that my sources need to be better than yours, they must, as you say, reflect "the great majority of reliable sources" to overcome the imprecision argument. But still not even one single source that actually intends to define squash? --Tom Hulse (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

First I must apologize for the other day. Wiki didn't cause me to snap, but real life stress and frustration did due to a very ill close family member. I will send details to Sminthopsis. That is no excuse, but is an explanation. Tom, you are the only one arguing your side. Please drop the stick. HalfGig talk 01:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back, I'm glad you're staying. :) I truly do wish for better health for your family member.

It's perhaps not great form to ask others to stop talking at the very point you may be loosing the argument the worst. I have no misconceptions about whether there will currently be consensus for a name change (I'm not that dumb, lol), but I do feel that I'm soundly winning the sources & policy argument, and I am enjoying an interesting plant discussion related to taxonomy; so no, since this is a discussion and not a vote, I won't quit quite yet. :) --Tom Hulse (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I've struck the minor error I made, but the position is not materially affected, and you are not "winning" anything. Also, please keep what you "feel" and "enjoy" out of Wikipedia discussions, as those things are not relevant. I'm unwatching now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@Tom Hulse: if you want to argue that Ilex should not be at "Holly", I will agree with you. There are many plant articles at English names which should not be; this is slowly being corrected, although not as fast as I would like. This example is certainly not an argument for making another error by moving Cucurbita to "Squash".

What the RHS examples (mine and yours) show is what we already know: "squash" is not used consistently, because it's used like "dog" or "cat" – sometimes for a wide group (cultivated cucurbits), sometimes for a narrower group (roughly cultivated cucurbits which resemble some mental image of a "squash" rather than, say, a "pumpkin" or a "gourd"). Hence it is not sufficiently precise for an article title. Finding sources which use the broad sense doesn't negate the existence of sources which don't, even when the same organization does both. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

At least since I started working on this article, there's been way more effort put into arguing about the title than discussing the content of the article. It's things like this that make people leave wikipedia. One person stubbornly fillibustering to stop an overwhelming consensus agreement reminds me of dysfunctional national legislatures. Not to mention that work on the article content has been stymied. HalfGig talk 11:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

My vote would be for the page to remain at the genus name - I'd never thought of or considered a zucchini to be a squash...I always think of the squash things as the little yellow or pale green funny shaped ones only...hmmm. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There's clearly no consensus at this point supporting a move, and it does seem like we've spent a lot of time (enough time, in my opinion) discussing the article title, and we can stop at this point. Further energy would be better spent on the article content (which is already pretty good!). Zad68 14:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree that there is no consensus supporting a move. It is time to stop this destructive discussion before any more editors give up. A book that explains the naming and the reasons for it is Phillips, R.; Rix, M. (1993). Vegetables. New York: Random House.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), which has several paragraphs on the matter, as well as descriptions within each species of the forms that have acquired the various common names. It explains that those names are used to distinguish fruit that ripen in different seasons and have different uses, and "To add to the confusion many squashes and pumpkins are plants belonging to any of the four species: C. pepo L., C. maxima Duch. ex Lam., C. moschata (Duch ex Lam.) Duch. ex Poir., and C. mixta Pangalo."

Cucurbita is the best candidate name for this page, and "Cucurbit" is an equivalent but less well known (rather scholarly) variant, but "squash" and "pumpkin" are as inappropriate for the whole genus as referring to all dogs as "dachshund". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

An additional source: The Encyclopedia of Fruit & Nuts (2008): "Cucurbita L. includes edible fruit known as squash and pumpkins and inedible fruit known as gourds." p. 292 Sasata (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

HalfGig, I'm a little concerned that you and Sminthopsis are misstating my position as still hoping to overcome consensus. Not at all, as I said in my last post; instead I am engaging in a mutual discussion about the article and the genus that I and others enjoy. "Stubbornly" is a pejorative in this context. So is "filibustering". Please could you consider that Wikipedia asks us to "Comment on content, not on the contributor"? You said the work on the article was stymied. Absolutely not! :) You are completely free to edit the article as you normally would, and I would invite you to do as much as you like. We got off on a bad foot, so I would also invite you to have a nice cup of tea (see the end of that page).

Peter, yes Holly is an excellent example that mirrors the differences/similarities of genus/species common names in squash. There is no difference, unless you could make a dubious argument that it has not enough agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use to get a common name title per WP:FLORA. The trouble with trying to read confusion where there is none at the RHS link, is that even though one tiny spot seems to say that that squashes are inside of Cucurbita (which is true! e.g. summer squash), that does not mean the common name for the genus can't be squash, like the major sources say. It's not a contradiction and it's not confusion, it's just true. Similar for Sasata's quote (thanks for using sources!!) They both say what the genus includes (common names for the species), not what it excludes. It's not a definition for squash. You postulated a definition for squash & said it like it's fact. Since it's different from the most reliable & most clear sources, where did you get it? What kind of confusion do you really think will happen if the article were named squash? Someone might be looking for Cucurbita but get directed to Squash instead; then they are so confused that they just can't read the lead which tells them squash is the common name for the genus, as all the major sources say?

Sminthopsis, you didn't notice the irony of you crying for discussion to stop, but then immediately making new contributions yourself? You just want me to stop talking, but you get to keep arguing, lol? ;)

In any case, since the article is staying at it's current name, do you all think we should at least discuss in the article how the big sources treat the common name for the genus, and contrast that with common names for the individual species? Basically an etymology section for both Cucurbita and for the common names? --Tom Hulse (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course we should document how reliable sources use the term "squash". Here's another one:

Michael Allaby (1992), Oxford Concise Dictionary of Botany, p.110 (under Cucurbitaceae, no entry for Cucurbita or squash): "There are many important food plants, e.g. [some Cucumis spp.], Cucurbita pepo (gourd), marrows, pumpkins, and squashes." Again note that "squashes" do not include "gourd", "marrows" or "pumpkins". Peter coxhead (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an old discussion, but I'm glad the article wasn't retitled as Squash. Australian's do not eat squash. The idea of eating something so named is repellent to any Australians that I have asked. They eat pumpkin, zucchini, and some other vegetables in the genus Cucurbita. Wikipedia aims to take a world view, not just a North American one. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a more basic reason. The article is about the genus and the name of the genus is Cucurbita, not squash. HalfGig talk 15:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Cucurbita maxima and Cucurbita moschata cultivar groups/market types

I don't know if someone is still working on this article, but I see some disbalance in the cultivar groups section. If it has a table of Cucurbita pepo groups, it should have another table for Cucurbita maxima groups and another one for Cucurbita moschata "market types" (the last one because that species is not formally recognized as divided in cultivar groups). For what I have studied, Cucurbita moschata should show "Butternut type = Bell type" (some of them have crooknecks but they are consumed mature as winter squashes), "Cheese type" and "Tromboncino type = Crookneck type" (summer squashes with long crooknecks). Cucurbita maxima should have at least the groups: Banana, Turban (excluding Zapallito), Zapallito (summer squash), Hubbard, Delicious, Marrow, Show (including Mamooth), Kabocha (including hybrids with C. moschata), and for C. pepo, probably is best to split "summer pumpkin" from pumpkin group and leave "pumpkin group" only for those that are consumed mature, and add "Spaghetti group" and "Hullness or Semihullness group (including Styria group, = "oil pumpkin" group)". References are Robinson and Decker-Walters 1997, Ferriol and Picó 2008, I was searching for photographs and you can find them here (working on "calabazas" too): https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiproyecto_Discusi%C3%B3n:Bot%C3%A1nica#Match_fotito-nombres --RoRo (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't at all agree with splitting the "pumpkin" group. As for C. moschata and C. maxima tables, I put in the C. pepo table because that species is by far the dominant food cucurbita and also the best documented. I am uncertain if the length of the article with two more tables would be a community concern or not. HalfGig talk 12:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a vote that two more tables seems fine to me, they aren't particularly huge tables, so I think it would be okay. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I found the Robinson ref, but can you post the link to the Ferriol and Picó ref as I can not find it. HalfGig talk 23:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess it is this one. Ferriol, M.; Picó, B. (2008). "Pumpkin and Winter Squash". In J. Prohens; F. Nuez (ed.). Handbook of Plant Breeding: Vegetables I. Vol. 1. Springer New York. pp. 317–349.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Things to work on left from the Peer Review

1. is there a better term for "domestication events"?

   Apparently not. HalfGig talk 00:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

2. I think the table would look better if the middle column were right justified and centralized (I can't figure this out. I made it look the same as the table in Cabbage.)

   Done. HalfGig talk 00:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

3. Production: might be useful to list (as a table) the production of major curcubit vegetables separately by continent (e.g. watermelon, cucumber, melons and pumpkins/squash) with totals at the bottom

   Done. HalfGig talk 00:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

4. I think the article is missing information on germination/seedling growth

   Done. HalfGig talk 00:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

5. it seems the range of flower morphologies in this group is more diverse than the "Description" section accounts for

   Done HalfGig talk 23:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

6. which plant growth hormones are primarily responsible for determining flower gender, and which regulate fruit set?

   Done. HalfGig talk 23:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

7. Prose needs work (i'll need help with this too)

HalfGig talk 13:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The article would benefit from a cladogram for the phylogeny of the squashes, perhaps more than one if there are alternative views on it.

Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. HalfGig talk 23:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I actually think the flags in the table should be left-aligned so they all line up, they look a bit messy at the moment. Just an aesthetic thing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Done. HalfGig talk 00:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Questions about wording

I have been asked to participate in getting Cucurbita to the point where it could be considered for FA status. I am not a botanist, so forgive me if I show ignorance of botanists' lingo or botanical facts. I am going to focus on readability and clarity, smooth sentence flow, paragraph cohesion, etc. If you find some of my concerns too obscure or unwarranted, just let me know that you like the sentence the way it is (or some other way).

The lead

1) In the first sentence,

• Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is a genus in the gourd family Cucurbitaceae native to and originally cultivated in the Andes and Mesoamerica,

I wondered about "originally cultivated in..." To me, "originally" suggests that it is no longer cultivated there. I prefer "first cultivated in...."

Agreed. Change it. HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. CorinneSD (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

2) Regarding "in the Andes and Mesoamerica", you've got a mountain chain first and a large region second. I suggest either:

• in the Andes Mountains and in Mesoamerica", or

I prefer this one. HalfGig talk 23

20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• in the Andes Mountains in South America and in Mesoamerica".

I was about to make this change but decided first to look at the link to Andes in the first paragraph in the lead. It's interesting that the title of the article just "Andes", not "Andes Mountains". Maybe it should just stay "the Andes...". Perhaps "the Andes in South American (leaving out "Mountains") and in Mesoamerica" would be clearest, and not wordy. CorinneSD (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Mesoamerica is Central America an southern Mexico, not the same as Andes. Adding "in South America" is redundant to Andes. The article currently says "Andes and MesoAmerica", so I'd leave as is. HalfGig talk 12:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

3) The second sentence reads:

• The Cucurbita genus is an important source of human food and is used for other purposes such as beverages, medicine, oil, and detergent,

I'm not crazy about this sentence. I wonder about "is an important source of human food". To me, it is a human food. Is it necessary to say "a source of"? If it is, then I would separate "is used for other purposes..." from that clause: "The C genus is an important source of human food."

"The Cucurbita genus...is used for other purposes" sounds odd to me. I would be more specific here and say "Some members of the Cucurbita genus are used for other purposes...."

Agreed. Pls edit as you see best. HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I broke this sentence up into two sentences and added "Some members of the genus" to the second part. What do you think of it now? CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Good. HalfGig talk 12:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

4) The fourth sentence reads:

• The plants, referred to as squash, pumpkin or gourd depending on species, variety and local parlance, are grown for their edible fruits and seeds.

I wondered why "squash" is in bold italics, "pumpkin" is in italics and linked, and "gourd" is in italics and not linked.

I did a search for "squash" and it ended up at a disambiguation page, but on that page I saw that there is an article for squash (plant). Shouldn't there be a link at "squash" like [[squash (plant)|squash]]? I did a search for "gourd" and it led to an article entitled "Gourd". Shouldn't "gourd" be linked here? I know it's linked at the beginning ("Latin for gourd"), but I think a lot of readers might miss that. Could it be linked in both places?

Agree they should be consistent. Please edit as you prefer. HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I added a link to "gourd" in that sentence (but now there are two links to "gourd" in the article -- I don't know if that is acceptable). Regarding "squash", I noticed that there is a note to editors after it that it's a target of a redirect, so I had better not take away the bold. CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I unbolded "squash". We'll just have to leave the note in the body since it's a redirect. Unlinked second gourd. I am fairl sure you only need the first one linked. HalfGig talk 12:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

5) The fifth sentence reads:

• Real (bottle-)gourds, used as utensils or vessels, belong to the genus Lagenaria and are native to Africa.

I think I have discussed this with Sminthopsis84, but I still think putting "bottle-" in parentheses like this is ridiculous. It looks bad, and it is confusing. The average reader will not know why it is in parentheses. It's either "Real gourds" or "Real bottle-gourds". How about "Real gourds, also called bottle-gourds,..."?

Agreed. "Real gourds, also called bottle-gourds," is best or even "True gourds,...". HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Second paragraph of lead

6) The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead reads:

• There are five domesticated species: Cucurbita argyrosperma, C. ficifolia, C. maxima, C. moschata, and C. pepo. C. pepo includes varieties of both winter squash and summer squash, and C. moschata can be used as winter squash because the full-grown fruits can be stored for months.

I wonder about this part: "and C. moschata can be used as winter squash".

What does "can be used as winter squash" mean? Is it:

• can be used in the same way as winter squash is used" (and what would that be, other than eating it in the winter?) or

• can be eaten in the winter?

Perhaps "can be treated as winter squash"?

defer to Sminthopsis84 HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"Treated as" sounds good to me; I think it makes clearer than "used as" that winter squash isn't a different thing, but a way to use the fruit. I've made the change. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

7) The last two sentences of the second paragraph of the lead read:

• There is no universal agreement on how to handle the taxonomic treatment of the genus, with the number of species being listed varying from 13–30. There is uncertainty as to the ancestors of some species.

(a) "There is no universal agreement on how..." does not sound good. It should be:

• There is no universal agreement as to how to handle the taxonomic treatment of the genus", or

• There is no universal agreement on the taxonomic treatment of the genus, or

• There is no universal agreement regarding the taxonomic treatment of the genus.

(I assume "the taxonomy of the genus" is not correct; it if is, it would be more concise.)

I prefer the regarding one HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind if we got Sminthopsis84's opinion on this one? CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(b) I'd like to ask about this phrase: "with the number of species being listed varying from 13–30".

Is it necessary to say "being listed"? Would it be all right to say:

• with the number of species varying from 13–30, or

• with the number of species listed varying from from 13–30?

last one HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(c) I think it would read better as "from 13 to 30", using "to" instead of an en-dash.

OK HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(d) I'd like to say something about this sentence:

• There is uncertainty as to the ancestors of some species.

There is no indication of the connection between this sentence and what precedes it. You could add "also" after "There is": "There is also uncertainty as to the ancestors of some species", but that does not clear things up much. Is this one reason why there is "no universal agreement" as to the taxonomic treatment of the genus? If so, it should be connected to the previous reason in some way.

Defer to Sminthopsis84 HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I've made some changes including splitting the paragraph. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Third paragraph of the lead

8) The first sentence in the third paragraph of the lead reads:

• Most Cucurbita species are vines that grow several meters in length, have yellow or orange flowers, and may have tendrils.

The combination of three verb phrases each beginning with a different type of verb is not the most elegant writing:

• are...., have..., may have....

You already said it's "Most Cucurbita species", not all. Is it necessary to use the tentative "may have" for tendrils? What's the percentage (roughly) of that group -- most Cucurbita species -- that have tendrils? If it's 90-100%, then you don't need "may". If it's 50-80%, then I would separate the third phrase:

• Most Cucurbita species are vines that grow several meters in length and have yellow or orange flowers; many [or some] of these also have tendrils.

Defer to Sminthopsis84 HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I've reworked that, see what you think. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

9) The third sentence of the third paragraph of the lead reads:

• There are two types of flowers on a plant, the female flowers that produce the fruit, and the male flowers that produce pollen.

To me, "a plant" is too general. It sounds like "any plant". I would use the name of this plant:

• There are two types of flowers on a Cucurbita plant: the female flowers that produce the fruit and the male flowers that produce pollen. (with the punctuation just like this).

OK HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

10) The last sentence of the third paragraph of the lead reads:

• Many North and Central American species are visited by specialist bee pollinators, but other insects with more general feeding habits, including honey bees, also visit.

I would say "such as honey bees" instead of "including honey bees":

"...but other insects with more general feeding habits such as honey bees also visit". (no commas)

OK HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph of the lead

11) The first sentence in the fourth paragraph of the lead reads:

• The Cucurbita genus is an important source of human food and the fruits are good sources of several nutrients such as vitamin A, vitamin C, dietary fiber, niacin, folic acid, and iron.

(a) You already said that the Cucurbita genus is an important source of human food earlier in the lead. I don't think it needs to be said twice. Pick the best place.

Cut from this one, leave it in the first occurrence. HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(b) You've got the word "source" and its plural, "sources", in close proximity in this sentence. Consider that as you consider where best to mention "is an important source of human food".

12) The second sentence in the fourth paragraph of the lead reads:

• In addition, they are free of fat and cholesterol.

The pronoun "they" is ambiguous. In the previous sentence you have several plurals: "the fruits", "good sources", "nutrients", and "vitamin A, etc."

If you separate "The Cucurbita genus is an important source of human food" from "The fruits are good sources of several nutrients...," then this information can be joined to that second sentence:

"The fruits are good sources of several nutrients such as.....and are free of fat and cholesterol."

Defer to Sminthopsis84 HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I've reworded that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

13) User:Sminthopsis84 and User:HalfGig This is the only item that has not been resolved. Perhaps Sminthopsis84 will understand what I mean when s/he gets a chance to read this. If not, then I will attempt either to explain what I mean in a clearer manner or go ahead and make some edits. CorinneSD (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The last two sentences of the fourth paragraph of the lead are:

• The plants contain the toxins cucurbitin, cucurmosin and cucurbitacin. Medical uses of the plant include treating skin conditions and improving visual acuity.

I know it's part of a summary, but these seem sort of abruptly "tacked on" after a discussion of positive benefits of the genus. Also, they mention toxins first and medical uses second, which is opposite to the order in the article. The medical uses makes for a slightly better transition from the discussion of positive food benefits of the genus, so I would put that first. Then the contrast can be highlighted a bit. (I also wonder whether the switch from discussing the fruits to "the plant" is necessary. I couldn't tell for sure from reading those two sections on Medical uses and Toxins whether parts of the plant other than the fruits are used medicinally and/or contain toxins. If it's just the fruits, then "the plant" could be changed to "the fruit" or "the fruits".) So, using "the plant", I've changed the order:

"The plant has medical uses including treating skin conditions and improving visual acuity; it also contains several toxins."

(Do the specific names of the toxins have to be mentioned here? They are mentioned in the section on toxins. This is supposed to be a summary of the main points of the article.)

I got lost on this one. Are you done changing it or do you feel it needs changed more? Sminthopsis84 is probably a better one to answer this one. HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's all for now. I'll continue reading the rest of the article now. CorinneSD (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD--THANK YOU so much for taking this on and starting so quickly. We really appreciate it and you have an excellent talent for this. 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm happy to be of help. CorinneSD (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I tried to fix this. HalfGig talk 03:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Wording, continued

Description

1) The third sentence in the second paragraph in "Description" reads:

• All of the above-ground parts may be hairy with various types of trichomes, and sometimes these are hardened and sharp.

In the clause "sometimes these are hardened and sharp", the demonstrative pronoun "these" is ambiguous. It could refer to "all of the above-ground parts" or "various types of trichomes".

If "these" refers to "various types of trichomes", I would write:

"sometimes these trichomes are hardened and sharp", or

re-word it as follows:

"All of the above-ground parts may be hairy with various types of trichomes, which are sometimes hardened and sharp."

If "these" refers to "all of the above-ground parts", then it has to be re-worded like this:

"All of the above-ground parts may be hairy with various types of trichomes or hardened and sharp."

Defer to Sminthopsis84 HalfGig talk 23:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I've made that change. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

History and domestication

2) The second sentence in the first paragraph in "History and domestication" reads:

• The likely center of origin is southern Mexico and then spreading south into South America, largely in what is now known as Mesoamerica, and north to what is now the southwestern United States.

The phrase "largely in what is now known as Mesoamerica" does not make sense on the heels of "into South America". Mesoamerica is Central America, and extends only to Costa Rica and perhaps part of Panama. I'll leave it up to you as to how you want to fix this sentence.

Will do in a few minutes. HalfGig talk 23:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Your edit improved the sentence. I just made a few minor changes. CorinneSD (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Phylogeny

3) The second sentence in "Phylogeny" reads:

• The following cladogram of Cucurbita phylogeny is based upon a 2002 study based on mitochondrial DNA by Sanjur et al.

This sentence contains "based on" twice. Is there any way to avoid this repetition? CorinneSD (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Will do in a few minutes. HalfGig talk 23:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Habitat and distribution

4) The first sentence in "Habitat and distribution" reads:

• Of the five domesticated species, four of them, Cucurbita argyrosperma, C. ficifolia, C. moschata, and C. pepo, originated and were domesticated in Mesoamerica whereas in the case of C. maxima this occurred in South America.

I think the last part of this sentence is a little wordy. There's also a bit of ambiguity in "this" in the phrase "this occurred". Does "this" refer to both "originated" and "were [was] domesticated" or just to "were [was] domesticated"? If it refers to both, "this" should be "these" -- "these occurred". I think the clause can be made more concise, but before I work on it I need to know what, exactly, occurred in South America regarding C. maxima. CorinneSD (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

For C. maxima, it refers to both origination and domestication, that was in S. America. The other four both originated and domesticated in MesoAmerica, which is basically Central America and southern Mexico. HalfGig talk 13:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

5) In the middle of the second paragraph in Cucurbita#Habitat and distribution, a researcher named "Paris" is mentioned. This is the first mention of this person in the article. Shouldn't the first and last names of a person be given the first time the person is mentioned in an article? I'm not sure of WP style on this point. I notice that at least this person is identified with "botanist Paris" later in this section, but still no first name. Also, another researcher, "botanist Andres", is mentioned, with no first name.

Fixed. Good catches! HalfGig talk 13:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

6) The last sentence in the third paragraph in "Habitat and distribution" reads:

• Seeds are sown in May–June and fruit harvested from October–December.

Probably indicating the sowing and harvesting periods like this is standard for botanists, but I'm wondering if it would clearer for the non-expert if it were written like this:

"Seeds are sown in May and June, and fruit is harvested from October to December," or

This one is best. HalfGig talk 13:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"Seeds are sown in May and June, and fruit is harvested in October and December."

Done. CorinneSD (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

7) The last sentence in the entire section "Habitat and distribution" reads:

• These eight edible cultivated varieties of C. pepo vary widely in shape and color, and one non-edible cultivated variety:

This is not a complete sentence. I'm not sure how to fix it. CorinneSD (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. I hope. Please take a look. HalfGig talk 13:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have a few things to say about the last three sentences, which are:

*In 1986 Paris proposed a taxonomy of C. pepo consisting of eight edible and cultivated groups based on their basic shape and color, which varies widely. All but a few C. pepo can be included in these groups. There is one non-edible cultivated variety:

(a) The first of these sentences mentions "a taxonomy...consisting of eight edible and cultivated groups".

It's not clear whether that the table that follows these sentences is illustrating this taxonomy or not. There should be a sentence right before the table that clearly says what the table will show (and includes and does not include).

(b) If Paris proposed "a taxonomy...consisting of eight edible and cultivated groups," then what is the point of mentioning the one inedible variety (last sentence)? How does that inedible variety fit in? Is it included in the table? Yes. I see that it is. CorinneSD (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This needs to be clarified. If you need help constructing the sentence or sentences, let me know. Just list what is true. CorinneSD (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's best you fix this one. Here's the facts: Paris' taxonomy only included the eight edible/cultivate types of C. pepo. The table includes all nine, it's about all C pepo, not just the edibles. For completeness the table should have all nine. Paris is mentioned in the text so readers know which of the taxonomies is being used (there are others but it's best to use Paris here). Paris left out the ovifera group (the ornammentals). I am all open to how you wish to fix this. Agree it is still somewhat awkward. HalfGig talk 23:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Now that I understand it, I added a sentence to introduce the table. What do you think of it? I wonder whether the table would look a little nicer if the first word in each section in the Description column were capitalized, such as "Winter squash". I think the table would look a little more polished that way. But if there is an accepted format for this type of table that uses lower-case, then I guess it has to stay lower-case. CorinneSD (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I upper cased them. HalfGig talk 01:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, good. CorinneSD (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

8) I notice that except for the single mention of "squash" in the first paragraph of the lead (and now in bold), and the mention of winter and summer squash in the second paragraph of the lead, and the single mention of "squash beeds" in Cucurbita#Reproductive biology, the word is not used at all for quite a while until suddenly in the third and fourth paragraphs of Cucurbita#History and domestication is it used several times, and then mentioned only in the list and in the table, and then a few times in the remaining sections. I think there has to be some indication as to why "squash" is used so little at the beginning of the article, and more frequently in the second half of the article, and the relationship between Cucurbita and "squash" has to be made clear (if it's there, I have missed it).

A User:Gerda Arendt re-bolded it. I guess there's a rule about terms redirecting to the article in use. "Squash" is any member of the genus cucurbita. They're in essence interchangeable terms, but I see that being confusing too. The 4th paragraph talks about the origin of the word squash, so you have to use it. I've gone through in two edits to clear this up. If you can improve, feel free. Also note in the opening it says "The plants, referred to as squash...." "Cucurbita" tends to be used by academics and when discussing the genus. "Squash" is more colloquial and used more in everyday use and when talking about it as a food. Think of it this way...Have you ever heard someone say "Let's have cucurbita pie" or "Let's go get a Halloween cucurbita?" HalfGig talk 23:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, why doesn't the article use the word "squash" all the way through, then? And the title of the article could be "Squash". CorinneSD (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Because the article is on the genus. See thread above on this very page. This has been hashed out before. HalfGig talk 01:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Cucurbita#Do_we_need_Squash_.28plant.29.3F and Talk:Cucurbita#Why_aren.27t_we_titled_Squash_here.3F HalfGig talk 01:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I see you've added a link. I'll look at it tomorrow. This is what I was typing when I got the Edit Conflict:

I'll look at the thread, but not now; I'm a little tired -- have been editing for hours. But can I ask you something? I read the sentence in the first paragraph of the lead that reads "The plants, referred to as squash, pumpkin or gourd depending on species, variety and local parlance, are grown for their edible fruits and seeds." Then I looked at the Scientific classification list in the infobox. Which word in the Scientific classification list would pertain to squash? In other words, which ones in this big family would be considered squash (for example, in the U.S.)? CorinneSD (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Two links added. All squashes are Cucurbita, ie, part of this article. But depending on local parlance etc not all Cucurbita are squashes OR they are ;-). In Australia there are no squashes, every Cucurbita is a pumpkin. See pumpkin; which more or less follows American usage. In America, All pumpkins are C. pepo or C. moschata. In Asia, a kabocha, which is C. maxima, is a pumpkin but some Americans call it a squash. Yes, this is all confusing and impossible to standardize, so you have to pick a methodology and just go with it. In the I tried to use Cucurbita for more academic spots and squash for more "everyday people"/food spots. Since the article (see banner on talk page) uses American English (cucurbits are from the New World after all), I'd suggest we standardize on something that makes sense in America. Let me throw in another wrinkle...in the C. pepo chart, the only called a pumpkin is that one row, this is in line with the pumpkin article. HalfGig talk 02:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It is confusing. You said, above, that "In American, all pumpkins are C. pepo or C. moschata." But in the picture in the article of butternut squash, it says it is C. moschata, and that definitely is not called a pumpkin in the U.S. In the U.S. every single one except the roundish orange ones (pumpkins) and the inedible gourds are called squash. (and everyone knows pumpkin is one kind of squash, too). CorinneSD (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

9) Also, I notice that the word "Cucurbit" or "Cucurbits" is used only in the caption in the illustration at the beginning of Cucurbita#History and domestication, and then, out of the blue, three times in Cucurbita#Pests and diseases with no explanation. What are "Cucurbits"? Already, two words -- Cucurbita (and "species of Cucurbita") and "squash" -- have been used. Why switch to a new word? CorinneSD (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you're really good at this. I think you could be a professional copyeditor, if you aren't already. "Cucurbitaceae" is a family, which includes more than just Cucurbita = "Cucurbit", another word for the family. So it depends on what you're talking about, if you are using the words accurately. Going through the use of "cucurbit" one by one: in the photo caption it's accurate, as the cucurbit family was unknown at all in Europe at the time, in the pest section I've moved the phrase "cucurbits, which is the family Cucurbitaceae.", maybe that'll help. Pests affect the whole family, not just the genus. HalfGig talk 23:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh...forgot...thanks for the compliment! CorinneSD (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for my interruption, I'm aware you may feel uncomfortable with it. Anyway I will try to make this contribution because I think I may clarify something. Having said why I am here: I have studied the use of the terms in order to translate them for the Spanish wikipedia and I think you have missed that "squash" refers only to 4 species of Cucurbita: C. pepo, C. maima, C. moschata, C. argyrosperma, and from them, it only refers to the edible varieties. The "ornamental gourds" of C. pepo are just gourds, not squashes nor pumpkins. Also, Cucurbita ficifolia, "the fifth species" from the Andes, is also considererd a gourd (an edible gourd) and from what I understand, the denomination of this species like "squash" or "pumpkin" has little acceptation (I have never seen it like a squash or a pumpkin, being the exception the English wikipedia entry for it). Having said that, there are not squashes nor pumpkins outside those 4 species (those 4 species are part of a mesophytic annual clade, also). Inside these 4 species, the wild varieties, as Cucurbita texana (now Cucurbita pepo var. texana) and various others, are just gourds, little, non-edible and sometimes used like rattles or decorative gourds, they are never "squash" nor "pumpkin". Also, taxonomists generally agree that "squash" sensu lato includes the (round) "pumpkins". Finally it could be good to clarify that "canned pumpkin" is in fact "canned squash sensu lato" since there are not neccesarily pumpkins in there, but the term people uses also refer to "pumpkin".

Here I have a few references:

Robinson & Decker-Walters (1997) p. 72: "Cultivars are classified as summer squash (sometimes called vegetable marrow) or winter squash, depending on whether the fruit is used when immature or mature. The term winter squash refers to the ability of the fruit to be stored until the winter months. Summer squashes are generally C. pepo, but winter squashes may be C. pepo (e.g. 'Acorn'), C. maxima ('Hubbard'), C. moschata ('Butternut') or C. argyrosperma ('Green Striped Cushaw')."

Robinson & Decker-Walters (1997) p. 77: "Commercially canned pumpkin pie mix may be made of C. pepo, C. maxima or C. moschata. Although C. pepo has a long tradition of use in the USA, fruits of the other two species produce better baked pies. Cultivars of C. moschata and C. maxima are also processed and sold as canned or frozen winter squash. Canners prefer cultivars with an orange rind; if a small piece of the skin is inadvertently included in the canned product, it is less noticeable than with green-fruited cultivars. Orange, carotene-rich fruits of C. maxima that are also fine in texture and flavour are mashed into jarred baby food."

Wang et al. (2011). J. Brent. Loy, Chapter 4 "Breedign Squash and Pumpkins", p.93: "Horticulturally, domesticated members of this genus (Cucurbita) are conveniently classified into three broad groupings: (1) summer squash cultigens, the fruit of which is consumed immature, about three to five days after fruit set; (2) winter squash, the fruit of which is harvested when mature, about 50 to 60 days after fruit set, but which may require additional storage to reach optimum sugar levels for desirable eating quality; and (3) gourd and pumpkin cultigens that are used mainly for ornamental purposes."

Paris (1989): "[About Cucurbita pepo: pumpkins, scallops, acorns, crooknecks, straghtnecks, vegetable marrows, cocozelles, zucchinis, Paris 1986] The pumpkins and acorns are grown for consumption of their mature (40 d or more past anthesis) fruits. The others are grown for consumption of their immature (generally first week past anthesis) fruits." (...) "The fruits of other C. pepo cultivars are not palatable and are grown purely for decorative purposes. These are known collectively as ornamental gourds, and they occur in a wealth of shapes and colors (Bailey 1937)."

Andres 2004 (the paper "Diversity in...") "Production statistics do not often distinguish between this species (Cucurbita moschata) and the other species of squash and pumpkin."

Munro & Small (1997) p. 172: "Canadian statistics for "squash" are not separated by individual species (C. pepo, C. moschata, C. argyrosperma, C. maxima)."

I hope this helps. Have a good day. --RoRo (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This just proves my point, that we'll never please everyone on the terminology issue. Even academics don't agree on it. This keeps coming up over and over. People will never agree. In Australia there are no squash, just pumpkins, for example. HalfGig talk 14:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

By the definition above, summer squashes being squashy (harvested when immature), there are C. moshata members of that informal group (the cultivar of that type that I'm most familiar with is 'Tromboncino') so "Summer squashes are generally C. pepo" is not a great summary. I would also remark that during a tour of the Canadian Plant Gene Resources Centre, the group I was with pointed out that a stack of recently acquired massive Cucurbita fruit that were coming in for study and seed storage were mislabelled (as C. pepo, when they were, rather clearly by the attached stems, C. maxima). It is not surprising that people, even experts, lump these species together for practical purposes, but calling them all "squash" is going rather too far with the lumping. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That aseveration was so USA centered, most "summer squashes" are ancestral varieties of C. maxima here in Argentina. People here don't speak English and there are no English names for them. And in some region of USA they call winter crooknecks "neck pumpkin". Lots of examples exist. What I say is that it seems to be a clear consense between taxonomists that "summer squash" is every (those 4 species) harvested immature for human consumption. May be a disagreement with popular taxonomies in some regions, but there is no way to make a consensus word that agree with all of them, because they contradict each other. It happened the same to me in the Spanish article Calabaza (lumped with Zapallo, Ayote, Pipián, Auyama), what I did was to define each word with the differences between regions in the first section of the article, and then I had to choose a "consensus word" for what English taxonomists call "summer squash" and a "consensus word" for what English taxonomists call "winter squash (and (winter) pumpkin)", and also a "consensus word" for the unedible-ornamental-decorative-gourds, because if you don't do that you can't express yourself in an unambiguous way in the rest of the article. I think if you put clearly why you are choosing those "consensus words" in the first paragraphs of the article the reader will accept them better (and you will have to, at least you may want to call all of them just "fruits"). I know thy are always resistances and perhaps other people will question the consensus decision and you may end up changing it (I did), but I it will be a little rare to read "fruit" everywhere when it looks that taxonomists agree in a degree about this. But oh well, you know your readers better. --RoRo (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there any FA-level article where they say something like "when we say 'squash' in this article we mean ....."? HalfGig talk 16:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

[In answer to the last question, not commenting on the current article at all] It's pretty risky. In Crocodilia we said "Although the term 'crocodiles' is sometimes used to refer to all of these, a less ambiguous vernacular term for this group is crocodilians." And in Sea we ended up with a crisp section on the word's definition. Yeah, it followed a lot of squabbling. It's certainly possible to define broad and narrow senses. The thing is worth doing if a definition cuts out a lot of future/futile argument. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem here. The lead makes it clear that Cucurbita species are "referred to as squash, pumpkin or gourd depending on species, variety and local parlance", which is easily demonstrated to be true. Afterwards the article can use phrases like "species of Cucurbita" or similar, as it does now.

(The only objection I have is the use of "Real gourds" in the lead; who says they are "real"? Fruits of Lagenaria species are no more "real" gourds than fruits of some Cucurbita species – see the Gourd article.) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem either, per Peter, but I also Chiswick's point. I think the thing to do here may be to put one of those explanatory footnote things after "referred to as squash, pumpkin or gourd depending on species, variety and local parlance", explaining how we use in the article. HalfGig talk 18:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably because that's the original taxon for the word, since Lagenaria was the only gourd present in Europe where English language developed. As in Spanish the word extended the number of taxa it referred especially after the contact with America. All Cucurbita and calabash trees (Crescentia and Amphitecna) and the less known amazonian Lecythis, they all are american "gourds" defined as harvested for ornamental uses due to the hardiness of its rind. Other "gourds" the word extended I suposse it was because of the similitude with the unripe edible varieties of Lagenaria that were popular in Europe before Cucurbita was known. --RoRo (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I've made a note, with a quote from a book by two academics (one a woman) from the University of Valencia, Spain, that discusses this very issue. Please everyone look it over. I've also taken the two usages of "real" gourd. HalfGig talk 23:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Good, a helpful note, quote and reference. It isn't us lot that need convincing, of course. Now that we are all clear and agreed, and the article makes the point repeatedly, we should be able to steer through reviews without *too* much trouble. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Wording, continued again

Habitat and distribution

I've been thinking about the first few sentences in "Habitat and distribution", which are now:

• There are five domesticated species. Four of them, Cucurbita argyrosperma, C. ficifolia, C. moschata, and C. pepo, originated and were domesticated in Mesoamerica, and one, C. maxima, originated and was domesticated in South America. The exact location of origin of C. ficifolia and C. moschata is less certain.

Yesterday, to fix the problem of the singular "this", in "this occurred", to refer to two events, I had written, and saved, as it is above:

• (A) Four of them, Cucurbita argyrosperma, C. ficifolia, C. moschata, and C. pepo, originated and were domesticated in Mesoamerica, and one, C. maxima, originated and was domesticated in South America.

But I was thinking that I should figure out a way to avoid repeating "originated and were domesticated", so I came up with the following:

• (B) Four of them, Cucurbita argyrosperma, C. ficifolia, C. moschata, and C. pepo, originated and were domesticated in Mesoamerica. For one of them,C. maxima, these events occurred in South America.

(which is not much different from the way it was before I made any changes).

I want to know which version you like better, A or B.

I like B. HalfGig talk`

O.K. Thank you. I'll change it. CorinneSD (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I noticed something else. The last sentence in the group of sentences that I copied above reads:

• The exact location of origin of C. ficifolia and C. moschata is less certain.

However, in the sentence before this beginning "Four of them, ....," C. moschata is included in the group of four that "originated and were domesticated in Mesoamerica". How can both of these sentences be true? CorinneSD (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Think of it like this...MesoAmerica and SA are big areas. The "less certain" part means narrowing down to a smaller area. I see two options a) cut "The exact location of origin of C. ficifolia and C. moschata is less certain" entirly or b) make is something like "The precise location of origin of C. ficifolia and C. moschata within those areas is less certain". I lean towards cutting it entirely. HalfGig talk 17:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I understand now. But I think you'll agree the sentence, especially following the previous information, was not very clear. I agree that it would be best to leave out that last sentence. (I'll bet no one is sure of the exact location of origin of any of the species.) I'll remove it. CorinneSD (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

2) A minor point: In the table at the end of Cucurbita#Habitat and distribution, the text in the Description column ends with a period in the Ornamental gourds section. There is no period at the end of the text in the Description column for any of the other sections. The question is, should there be a period at the end of the descriptions for all of them, or should the last one be removed, or is it appropriate for that text and not the others? Perhaps we need to look at similar tables in other articles. CorinneSD (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree should be consistent here. I'm not sure which is "proper" but since the photo captions have no ending period, I removed it. HalfGig talk 19:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The lead

3) I have a question about a sentence in the first paragraph in the lead. The sentence reads:

• Used as utensils or vessels, gourds, or bottle-gourds, are native to Africa; they belong to the genus Lagenaria, which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in different tribes.

I'm wondering about this part: "they belong to the genus Lagenaria, which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in different tribes,"

and specifically this part: "but in different tribes".

Does the genus Lagenaria include more than one tribe? If so, then "in different tribes" is correct -- but not especially clear. It would be clearer to say, "but not in the same tribe".

However, if the genus Lagenaria is in one tribe -- and Cucurbita in one or more others -- then it is not correct; it would have to be "in a different tribe":

"...which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in a different tribe [from Cucurbita]". Just checking. CorinneSD (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

A tribe is higher than a genus but below a family. Both are in the same family butt different tribes. I've already changed it to "in a differnt tribe". HalfGig talk 21:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I decided to read the article once through again. I didn't like the sound of these sentences from early in the lead:

• The Cucurbita genus is an important source of human food. Some members of the genus are used for other purposes such as beverages, medicine, oil, and detergent. Some Cucurbita species were brought to Europe after the discovery of America and are now used in many parts of the world.

There's "The Cucurbita genus", "Some members of the genus", and "Some Cucurbita species". I think it's a bit wordy/repetitive. I'd like to make this more concise. How about this:

The Cucurbita genus is an important source of human food, beverages, medicine, oil, and detergent. Some Cucurbita species were brought to Europe after the discovery of America and are now used in many parts of the world. – CorinneSD (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Good. I changed it. When you get a chance could you copy edit the new "in human culture" section? HalfGig talk 18:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I'll get to it later this afternoon. CorinneSD (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

HalfGig I'm working on Cucurbita#In human culture. I've done a bit of re-wording in Cucurbita#Art, music, and literature. I wanted to ask you something about the sentence that begins as follows:

• Until recently, the earliest known depictions of this genus in Europe was of Cucurbita pepo in De Historia Stirpium Commentarii Insignes in 1542 by the German botanist Leonhart Fuchs,...

I just wonder if you know whether it was one picture -- one depiction -- or more than one -- depictions. If it is just one picture, then I would change "the earliest known depictions" to "the earliest known depiction". If you don't know, is there a way to find out? CorinneSD (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've seen at least two pages of cucurbita drawings from this book so I'd go with plural. I also noticed festoon needed to be plural so I changed that. HalfGig talk 01:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

2) In the first paragraph of Cucurbita#Medicinal uses is the following sentence:

• Cucurbita seeds were used in traditional Chinese medicine to treat ascariasis and are used to treat schistosomiasis.

This is not a well-worded sentence. It switches from past tense, "were used", to present tense, "are used", with no explanation. Does this mean that Cucurbita seeds are no longer used to treat ascariasis? If so, why? Also, the addition of "and are used to treat schistosomiasis" after "were used in traditional Chinese medicine..." makes it unclear whether the use of Cucurbita seeds to treat schistosomiasis is part of traditional Chinese medicine. If these points could be cleared up, I would know better how to improve the sentence, or, of course, you could revise it. CorinneSD (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we should go with "were used" or "have been used". It's not clear if they are still used for this. HalfGig talk 01:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

In Cucurbita#Culinary uses, in the first paragraph, is the following sentence:

• Cucurbita is one of the most important of those, with the various species being prepared and consumed in many ways.

I don't understand the use of the verb "consumed" here. Why not use "eaten"? "Eaten" has only one basic meaning while "consumed" has more than one meaning. CorinneSD (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I notice that the verb "consumed" is used about two sentences below this where it makes slightly more sense. It would be good not to use the same verb twice in close proximity, so that's another reason to use "eaten" for the first instance. CorinneSD (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed to eaten. HalfGig talk 01:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

HalfGig Regarding your change from "festoon" to "festoons", if you're sure it's supposed to be plural, then the single indefinite article "a" needs to be removed. CorinneSD (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I want to read the article through once more from beginning to end, but I'm too tired now. I'll read it tomorrow. CorinneSD (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Question about image

I see that a different image has been added to the beginning of this article. It is a pyramid arrangement of several different types of Cucurbita. I would just like to offer my humble opinion that it is not the best image for the beginning of this article. I think the actual fruits are too small to see the shapes clearly. The overall impression is of something decorative, like a vegetable Christmas tree. I think an image that shows several different Cucurbita up close and clearly, but different from the image in Cucurbita#Species, would be the best type of image for the beginning of this article. I also notice that there is no image of any Cucucurbita actually growing on the vine or bush in this article. CorinneSD (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

They are a little hard to see, but I like it for the Thanksgiving and Christmas seasons. It'll be a bit before we have it ready for featured nomination anyway. There is the old painting of Cucurbita fruits on the vine. I've seen few good photos of them on the vine/bush. The picture that was there is a featured picture. HalfGig talk 18:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember what it looked like, but does that mean it can't be used in an article? CorinneSD (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

We are free to put images where we want, for the most part. Personally, I'd like to finish the great copyediting you're doing first. Then do the image review. Have you looked at "culinary uses" and below yet? The best bush/vine image I have found so far is artwork, not a photo. See the image in the taxobox of Cucurbita maxima. HalfGig talk 22:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I have uploaded recently some bush plants, some of them my own work and some of them not, that I think show clearly some features, you may think some of them could be useful in this article. --RoRo (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• 
  Maturing fruit for seeds on a C. pepo "zucchini" bush plant.
• 
  6-leaved bush plant: internodes not enlarging (they enlarge after the 4th leaf in a vine plant).
• 
  6-7-leaved vine plant: internodes enlarging.
• 
  Bush plants in a row: design for improving the time used for harvest.
• 
  Primary shoot in a bush plant: short internodes. Weak little tendrils in this case.
• 
  Bush Cucurbita maxima plant. Maturing fruit for seeds.

I put all the bush plant photos I found on Commons here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cucurbita_bush_plants I don't know exactly what you have in mind about vine photos, I put them here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cucurbita_vines I hope this helps. --RoRo (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That's beautiful. I added two of the images at Cucurbita maxima. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User:HalfGig In answer to your question just above, yes, I believe I finished reading the entire article. I think I may have made a few minor copy-edits in the last few sections but did not have any major concerns. Some of the sections are a bit technical, so I just skimmed those parts. I'm sure Sminthopsis84 will read it through at some point. CorinneSD (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Cucurbita seedling growth and plant sterols

I've removed some material about sterols which said that more study was needed. That work from the 1980s through 1990s has been superceded by work on Arabidopsis that has figured out the genetic control and much more of the chemical transformations involved. Cucurbita was important for a while in those studies, but the tiny plant with the 6-week life cycle has been more informative. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. HalfGig talk 15:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Dry and sensitive skin

I can't find government or university references for this. I can only find it listed as a product ingredient on sites for cosmetic firms that use it in cosmetics. I'm not sure if these are good enough sources. HalfGig talk 15:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I have found the seed oil in traditional uses, "deserving greater recognition", and in a tested sunblock lotion, these papers are very recent, from 2005 to 2014:

Deserving greater recognition. Review: Korać, R. R., & Khambholja, K. M. (2011). Potential of herbs in skin protection from ultraviolet radiation. Pharmacognosy reviews, 5(10), 164. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3263051/ "Cucurbita pepo (pumpkin) seed oil deserves greater recognition. With a lipid profile containing high levels of linoleic acid (43 – 53%), it contains two classes of antioxidant compounds: Tocopherols and phenolics, which account for 59% of the antioxidant effects. It is especially valued in the healing folklore of Eastern and Central Europe and the Middle East for its nutritious benefits and is used both topically and orally for a range of medical conditions. Due to the strong, rich aroma, it is only used in small proportions in topical formulations." This paragraph citing: Bensouilah J, Buck P, Tisserand R, Avis A. Aromadermatology: Aromatherapy in the Treatment and Care of Common Skin Conditions. Abingdon: Radcliffe Publishing Ltd; 2006.

Scientifically tested for a sunblock lotion (Cucurbita maxima seed oil). Barluado, M. J. G. (2014). Formulation and Sun Protection Factor Estimation of Squash Cucurbita maxima Seeds Sunblock Lotion. UIC Research Journals, 18(2). http://research.uic.edu.ph/ojs/index.php/uicpj/article/download/322/117 "(This) study successfully formulated a gentle, effective, and affordable sunblock lotion using squash seeds as organic active ingredient".

Traditional use. Athar, M., & Nasir, S. M. (2005). Taxonomic perspective of plant species yielding vegetable oils used in cosmetics and skin care products. African journal of biotechnology, 4(1), 36-44. www.academicjournals.org/journal/AJB/article-full-text-pdf/D493C2E9275 "Cucurbita pepo Pumpkin seed oil. The oil from pumpkin seeds has been used across the world as a treatment for sores, ulcers and other skin problems. Its high sterol and vitamins E content makes it ideal for the this purpose."

These references appear on Google Scholar, I don't know the quality of the authors or the journals though. --RoRo (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you RoRo. I added them. On Barluado the URL doesn't work and I can't get a page number though. HalfGig talk 20:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Pre-FAC comments

Some comments that will hopefully help the FAC go smoother. More later ...Sasata (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• ensure that short-form binomials have a non-breaking space to avoid unsightly line breaks
  • Fixed. HalfGig talk 13:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• be consistent with use of the Oxford comma
  • Fixed. HalfGig talk 12:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• ”Used as utensils or vessels, gourds, or bottle-gourds, are native to Africa” fix grammar
  • Fixed. HalfGig talk 22:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not ungrammatical. It started with a participial phrase. But the other version is fine. CorinneSD (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• links: family, iron, pollen
  • Fixed. HalfGig talk 03:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• ”Medical uses of the plant include treating skin conditions and improving visual acuity.” I don’t think eating curcubits for their putative effect on eyesight counts as “medical use”
  • I changed this to "a healthy eye" and added a third reference. Zad68 already looked at this section. He's very good at medical issues and medical references. I would have no issue having him look at this again. HalfGig talk 13:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is acceptable under WP:MEDRS; there's nothing special about cucurbits in relation to healthy eyes but the text insinuates that there is. I'm doubtful that some of the other medical information is sourced to the right standards (I removed a fact that definitely wasn't). Peter coxhead (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand MEDRS, so I defer to those that do understand it. If sources meeting MEDRS can't be found, we should delete it. HalfGig talk 15:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

To make a medical claim, we have to cite recent peer-reviewed scientific papers. There is in vitro ('test tube') evidence that C. moschata seeds have an effect on some parasites 1 and limited tests seem to have been done on other parasites with C. maxima.2. These could be cited to say something very cautious about 'possible pharmacological effects' but they definitely aren't proof of medical usefulness, which is what MEDRS demands. It might be worth asking on the medical wikiproject if they know of better evidence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

And not just any "recent peer-reviewed scientific papers"; my understanding of WP:MEDRS is that to support medical claims there should be at least one secondary review paper, i.e. a source that reviews primary research sources. I'm personally open to reporting "possible pharmacological effects" and have used wording of this kind in the past, but the MEDRS experts often then raise notability concerns, asking why Wikipedia should report "possible" effects. It's a very tricky area to get right in my experience. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I've asked for more input here. HalfGig talk 12:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• link node (earlier), germination, stamen, ovate-cordage
  • Fixed, stamen is linked at "stamen|staminate". HalfGig talk 03:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• ”with a 911.2 kilograms (2,009 lb) Atlantic Giant pumpkin.” needs to be adjectival (use the parameter adj=on if using a convert template)
  • Fixed. HalfGig talk 22:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• ”Cucurbita moschata acts as the genetic bridge within the genus.” what does this mean?

It's not really in the sense that "genetic bridge" is generally used, to mean that the gene flow is significant. The article says "While there are genetic barriers to hybridization between certain species such as the two xerophytic groups, digitata and foetidissima, both are compatible with C. moschata. Thus, it is possible to construct a genetic bridge between the two xerophytes using moschata as the bridging species, even though to be effective, such a bridge might have to be structured at the polyploid level." I'll reword it a bit. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• the first paragraph of “History and domestication” sounds disjointed and does not flow logically (e.g., why does having 20 pairs of chromosomes belong in this section?)
  • Fixed. HalfGig talk 03:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• the references will have to be gone through with a fine tooth comb for standardize the following:

• author name format (see “Ferriol, María; Picó, Belén” vs. “Millán R”

Fixed. Found three of the type you mentioned on your talk page. HalfGig talk 03:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• consistent title capitalization; I use sentence case for journal articles and title case for books, but it doesn’t really matter as long as it’s consistent throughout

Fixed. I made them all title case. HalfGig talk 12:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• publishers should be removed from journal publications

• done Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• ensure binomials are italicized (e.g. Glycine max)

Fixed. HalfGig talk 03:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Soltis & Soltis is lacking a publication year
  • Fixed. HalfGig talk 22:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

--Sasata 23:16, Thursday September 8 2022 (UTC)

MEDRS query

<waving hello to Sasata!> There was a post at WT:MED asking for help here (I edit medical articles and am a former delegate at WP:FAC). I looked at the Medicinal uses section here, and suggest a review for WP:OVERLINKing (cosmetics for example), and jargon (the disease names in medicinal uses were linked, but I had to go there to get some notion of what we were dealing with. I think MEDRS would require stronger sources for, or at least an examination of what sorts of medical sources are cited in the books for:

• Its seeds are treated with water and used as an anesthetic and to promote lactation in nursing women.

So far a quick search hasn't found more. HalfGig talk 02:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• and high doses of C. ficifolia have been shown to be successful in reducing blood sugar levels.

So far a quick search hasn't found more. HalfGig talk 02:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• This source should not be used at all: "Pumpkin Butter" (PDF). Carleton College. Retrieved November 21, 2013. or at minimum, be prepared to explain what makes her a reliable source (this is self-published). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I cut the butter source. HalfGig talk 02:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The lactation and blood sugar levels text should probably be removed if you can't find MEDRS-compliant sources for them. It seems that PMID 24564589 is a secondary review, but I am unaware of the quality of the journal, and do not have access to full text. I haven't found anything by searching PubMed for lactation. There are numerous secondary reviews in PubMed that aren't used in the article (which means you have a problem with criterion 1b, comprehensive and 1c, well researched). Do a thorough search of Pubmed ... I find at least PMID 23959481 and PMID 21110905 and PMID 16758316. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Sections

The section structure has growed like Topsy and needs reorg. Phylogeny belongs with Species not (recent human) 'History'. 'Culinary uses' and 'Medicinal uses', along with the current 'Cultural aspects', belong under a heading like 'In human culture', in which case the current 'Cultural aspects' likely needs renaming or reorg - it could be split into 'Festivals' and something like 'Music, art and literature'.

There is also a relationship between 'History and domestication' and the new 'In human culture' section: food use occurs in both, and the history of art is plainly part of the human relationship to the genus. Perhaps the two should at least be side by side at the end of the article; or perhaps they should be fully merged, with history of art in the new 'Music, art and literature' section, and 'Domestication' forming the first subsection of 'In human culture'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking along similar lines. I felt this should be done before we keep working on other remaining issues and have done this. Please review. HalfGig talk 21:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Super. I think we just need a short bit now on festivals from Latin America. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Cultural aspects in Hispanic America

About what HalfGig asked me on my talk page, referring the cultural uses of Cucurbita in Spanish speaking countries, I don't find we have so hilarious uses as Pumpkin chunking, regattas or grotesque lanterns, but just festivals used for exposition of squashes and pumpkins (where people shows their varieties), as in the rest of the world. It looks like Argentina is the only Spanish speaking country where one of the pumpkin festivals is a "National" one, the Fiesta Nacional del Zapallo ("Squashes and Pumpkins National Fest"), the last day they choose the Reina Nacional del Zapallo (the "National Queen of the Pumpkin", suppossed to be the prettiest girl) and there are entertaiment shows for all the family like musical or humor shows or things like that. I have never presenced one, I'm a populated-city girl. Links:

- Listed as one of the "National Fests", during the last week of June, in Ceres (Santa Fe), it has shows for all the family: La Fiesta Nacional. Fiesta Nacional del Zapallo. http://lafiestanacional.com.ar/fiesta-nacional-del-zapallo/

- This year (2014) was the 43th Fiesta Nacional del Zapallo. Newspaper Ceres online. Article on 23/5/2014. "Presentación Oficial. 43º Fiesta Nacional del Zapallo". http://ceresonline.com.ar/2014/05/presentacion-oficial-43o-fiesta-nacional-del-zapallo/#sthash.Wo7kqTt8.dpbs Newspaper El Litoral. Article on 11/6/2014. "Ceres: Presentaron la Fiesta Nacional del Zapallo". http://www.ellitoral.com/index.php/diarios/2014/06/11/regionales/REGI-02.html

Other pumpkin festivals I have found:

-There is a "regional fest" in Córdoba (Argentina). In 2013 was the 13th edition. They choose a Queen also. http://www.rh1hernando.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13292:la-fiesta-regional-del-zapallo-camino-a-ser-provincial&catid=68:noticias-pagina-principal&Itemid=567

-Adding another regional fest in Balcozna (Catamarca province, Argentina)<ref name="ArgentinaBalcozna">{{cite web |title=Festival del Zapallo en Balcozna|url=http://www.pais24.com/index.php?go=n&id=19501|publisher=País 24|language=Spanish|accessdate=November 22, 2014}}</ref>

-Another one: Colonia Avellaneda (Entre Ríos province, Argentina)<ref name="ArgentinaBalcozna">{{cite web |title=Se realiza hoy la Fiesta del Zapallo|url=http://www.eldiario.com.ar/diario/interes-general/102905-se-realiza-hoy-la-fiesta-del-zapallo.htm|publisher=El Diario|language=Spanish|accessdate=November 22, 2014}}</ref>

- In Peru the Festival del Zapallo de Curibaya (The Squashes and Pumpkins Festival in Curibaya). It is only 7 years old. the 2014 edition is the 7th one. There were competences and they choose the "best" and the "biggest" squash. http://radiouno.pe/noticias/40045/festival-zapallo-trucha-curibaya-se-realizara-plaza-quinonez

As a term, in Argentina we use zapallo ("squash") or cabeza de zapallo ("squash head") to refer to people who can't learn well and is not very intelligent, I think the same use as in Japan or in English, because there is a movie, Memoirs of a Geisha, where the term is used in exactly that way, they use "Pumpkin" as a nickname for a geisha girl that can't learn how to be very elegant and such.

Ref in Argentina: Todo Tango. Diccionario de Lunfardo. "Cabeza de zapallo": Persona bruta. http://dev.todotango.com/spanish/Biblioteca/Lunfardo/Definicion.aspx?l=C&p=cabeza+de+zapallo

If I find anything else I'll ad it here.

Oh and I think you could add to the article the "pumpkin regattas", on Commons there are a few nice photos of the Windsor Pumpkin Regatta (Windsor, Nova Scotia) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Windsor_Pumpkin_Regatta --RoRo (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I'm sure this will help us all to improve the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh I don't know if it is of interest but there is a classic short story from an Argentine writer, "El zapallo que se hizo Cosmos" (the pumpkin that (grew until it) became the cosmos) by Macedonio Fernández, about a squash that started its life in Argentina in a pretty productive place for squashes, and well, it started to grow a bit much. It is fun to read if you are searching for material for practising your Spanish :) Here is a link: Oscar Hahn. 1998. Fundadores del cuento fantástico hispanoamericano: antología comentada. http://books.google.com.ar/books?id=QQeFeFeqHFcC&pg=PA331&lpg=PA331&dq=zapallo+literatura&source=bl&ots=kQYIfvmTdz&sig=XjvS-btmFEncVHc72F75NbjXVqQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pLNvVLq7DcuxsASOsYDACQ&ved=0CGsQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=zapallo%20literatura&f=false --RoRo (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't speak Portugese nor Italian but because they are so similar to Spanish I can understand most of their sentences with a little help of the dictionary, I just added 5 regional festivals in Italy (they are so fans of squash varieties, it looks like each town has a club of "mads about squashes" should I add that they call themselves literally mad, "locos", I forgot you won't understand the text). I'll searh now in Portuguese and French, but probably there are festivals in each region where squash is grown. At least here in Argentina is not so common in the country side to inform people though the web about those regional festivals, but if I find some more I'll add them. Now in alphabetical order :) --RoRo (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you RoRo. This has definitely made the article better. I would leave out anything about the term being used to make fun of people. HalfGig talk 15:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You may not understand the meaning in Italian of the term, 3 of the webpages about squash/pumpkin festivals are made by associations called that way: Associazione Turistica Pro Loco di Piozzo (CN) (something like "Touristic association promoting to become crazy about the city of Piozzo), the other two are Associazione Pro Loco di Venzone (the same about Venzone) and Pro loco di Salzano (the same about Salzano). I'm happy to be of help it's just a little uncomfortable if you don't understand and don't ask. Anyway I'm learning the use of that word in a non-English person sounds pejorative for you. Regards. --RoRo (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ohhh I'm sorry now I understand you mean "squash head". Ok. --RoRo (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

There are places called "zapallo" or "calabaza" (squash/pumpkin). I don't know if there is an interest in have a list of them. I have found: "Parroquia Zapallo" (Ecuador), "Zapallo Grande" (Ecuador), "Los Zapallos" (Santa Fe province, Argentina), Calabasas (California, USA), "Calabazas" (Guanajuato, Mexico), "Calabazas (San Francisco del Sauce)" (San Luis Potosí state, Mexico), "Calabazas" (Badiraguato, Sinaloa state, Mexico), "Rancho de Calabazas" (Chihuahua, Mexico), "Calabazas de Fuentidueña" (Cuéllar, Spain). --RoRo (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Unclarity about geography

Two geographic statements in combination are a bit confusing: "native to and first cultivated in the Andes and Mesoamerica" and "Many North and Central American species are visited by specialist bee pollinators". Since Central America is a part of North America, but saying North America brings to mind the entire huge continent, could that latter sentence be clarified to "Many Mesoamerican species are visited by specialist bee pollinators", or perhaps can it be said that those species are pollinated by the specialist bees wherever they are cultivated throughout North America (I guess they have spread from Mesoamerica)? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the difference in where this genus arose (Mexico down to northern S. America) and where they were at the time Columbus arrived in 1492 (southern Canada, over to the Eastern N. America Agricultural Complex, to northern S. America). This is laid out in detail in the Hurd ref pages 219-221, currently ref 17, and B. Smith ref several pages, curently ref 88. HalfGig talk 23:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

I suppose that if one thinks of only two continents, Central America looks more like it is part of North America than it is of South America, but I've always heard that only Mexico is part of North America, Central America being seen as a region and as the connector between North America and South America. I've not generally heard that Central America is part of North America. I know I might be wrong about this, and perhaps these distinctions are not important for this article. Just thought I'd mention it. CorinneSD (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Geographicaly, C. America IS part of N. America. Culturally it is part of Latin America. See its own article: "Central America (Spanish: América Central or Centroamérica) is the central geographic region of the Americas. It is the southernmost, isthmian portion of the North American continent," HalfGig talk 00:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Toxins

Hi, you may be interested in adding these papers:

-Cucurbita andreana or Cucurbita maxima subsp. andreana is the wild C. maxima population in Argentina. The paper concludes that cucurbitacins of this species/subspecies have an effect of inhibition of the cellular growth and doesn't have an antiinflamatory effect. - Jayaprakasam B, Seeram NP, Nair MG. 2003. Anticancer and antiinflammatory activities of cucurbitacins from Cucurbita andreana. Cancer Lett. Jan 10;189(1):11-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12445672

-That same species, Cucurbita andreana, was used in a time in Argentinian medicine and veterinary as a purgative. Because of its toxic effects it was suppressed in 1943 from the Argentinian Codex medicamentarius and in 1968 it wasn't used neither in horses. Ref: Millán R (1968) Observaciones sobre cinco Cucurbitáceas cultivadas o indígenas en la Argentina. Darwiniana 14(4):654–660 http://www.jstor.org/stable/23213812

Regards. --RoRo (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll let Sminthopsis84 decide this one. HalfGig talk 00:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the first article, it seems that the authors used that species for convenience. This article which is heavily cited at cucurbitacin lists where the various cucurbitacins have been found (Cucurbitin A only in Cucumis species, Cucurbitacin B in a lot of Cucurbits, Cucurbitacin C only in Cucumis sativus, ...). I don't know, particularly in view of what happened to Vioxx in 2004, whether their main conclusion is medically useful, that these cucurbitins selectively inhibit COX-2 but not COX-1. The reason for the interest was apparently that many cancers constitutively express COX-2, so stopping their production from that gene would seem to be possibly helpful. So to summarize, I don't think that article would pass the WP:OR test and the fact that it is about that particular species doesn't seem very important.

That second point seems appropriate for the Cucurbita andreana article, I think. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. You may be interested in checking these two sentences from a book chapter: Tallamy DW, BE Hibbard, TL Clark and JJ Gillespie. 2005. Western Corn Rootworm, Cucurbits and Cucurbitacins. In: S Vidal et al. (eds.) 2005. Western Corn Rootworm: Ecology and Management CAB International. Chapter 4. http://web.missouri.edu/~hibbardb/CV_files/Tallamy%20et%20al%20chap04%20proof.pdf

(p.70-71) "Cucurbitacins are produced in at least some tissues of all members of the Cucurbitaceae (Gibbs 1974, Guha and Sen 1975, Jeffrey 1980) and a few species in other plant families (Curtis and Meade 1971, Pohlman 1975, Dryer and Trousdale 1978, Thorne 1981). In most species they are concentrated in roots and fruits, with lesser amounts in stems and leaves. Because of their extreme bitterness, cucurbitacins are thought to be involved in plant protection against herbivores (Metcalf 1985, Tallamy and Krischik 1989). Nevertheless, cucurbitacins are phagostimulants for both adults (Metcalf et al. 1980) and larvae (DeHeer and Tallamy 1991) of several luperine species in the subtribes Aulacophorina and Diabroticina (Table 4.1) and can have important ecological consequences for plants that possess them (Tallamy and Krischik 1989)." Another one. (p.72) "(Cucurbitacins have) extreme bitternes and ... ability to kill or repel most invertebrate and vertebrate herbivores (David and Vallance 1955, Watt and Breyer-Brandwijk 1962, Nielsen et al. 1977, Tallamy et al. 1997a)."

This one on medical, traditional uses. (p.70) "The biological activity of [cucurbitacins] has been recognized for centuries as a laxative and emetic and in the treatment of malaria, dysentery and dysmenorrhoea (Lavie and Glotter 1971, Halaweish 1987, Miro 1995). More recently, cucurbitacins have received a great deal of attention because of their antitumour properties, differential cytotoxicity towards renal, brain tumour and melanoma cell lines (Cardellina et al. 1990, Fuller et al. 1994); their inhibition of cell adhesion (Musza et al. 1994) and possible antifungal effects (Bar-Nun and Mayer 1989)."

--RoRo (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Other economic? practical? uses

Hi again, I don't find is mentioned in the article the characteristic of the wild Argentinian populations Cucurbita maxima subsp. andreana = Cucurbita andreana of being highly attractive upon the herbivore Diabrotica speciosa, the "Cucurbit Beetle", a plague in Argentina. Contardi (1939) was the first one to notice it and proposed to use it as an attractor in insect tramps. He mentions in that paper that Elmore & Campbell (1936) found the same effect in the system Cucurbita foetidissima and the species Diabrotica soror, D. trivillata, D. balteata, and experimented with diverse systems in order to utilize the gourd in insect tramps. References:

Contardi, GH. 1939. Estudios genéticos en Cucurbita y consideraciones agronómicas. Physis 18:331-347.

Elmore, JC, & Campbell Roy, E. 1936. Journal of Economic Entomology, vol. 29, nº 5.

Because the paper of Contardi is so difficult to obtain I copied exactly the paragraphs where he proposes it, it is in Spanish but at least in electronic and reachable format. --RoRo (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This 2005 book chapter confirms that at least in 2005 cucurbitacins are used as a lure in insect traps. Tallamy DW, BE Hibbard, TL Clark and JJ Gillespie. 2005. Western Corn Rootworm, Cucurbits and Cucurbitacins. In: S Vidal et al. (eds.) 2005. Western Corn Rootworm: Ecology and Management CAB International. Chapter 4. http://web.missouri.edu/~hibbardb/CV_files/Tallamy%20et%20al%20chap04%20proof.pdf

(p.67) "For more than a century, researchers have noted the curious attraction of adult luperine chrysomelids in the subtribes Diabrocitina and Aulacophorina to cucurbit species rich in the bitter compounds collectivelly called cucurbitacins (Webster 1895, Contardi 1939, Metcalf et al. 1980)". "[Diabrocitina and Aulacophorina] can locate cucurbits over long distances by tracking flower and wound volatiles, and ... cucurbitacins are phagostimulants for Diabroticites that ... cause them to eat anything containing these compounds (Sinha and Krishna 1970, Metcalf et al. 1980)." (p.72) "As discussed above, cucurbitacins are phagostimulants for many luperine adults (Metcalf et al. 1980, Nishida and Fukami 1990, Tallamy et al. 1997b) and larvae (DeHeer and Tallamy 1991)".

(p.67) "Noxious effects on other insects" (Nielsen et al. 1977, Tallamy et al. 1997a)

(p.70-71) "Because of their extreme bitterness, cucurbitacins are thought to be involved in plant protection against herbivores (Metcalf 1985, Tallamy and Krischik 1989). Nevertheless, cucurbitacins are phagostimulants for both adults (Metcalf et al. 1980) and larvae (DeHeer and Tallamy 1991) of several luperine species in the subtribes Aulacophorina and Diabroticina (Table 4.1) and can have important ecological consequences for plants that possess them (Tallamy and Krischik 1989). Adult luperines can detect cucurbitacins in nanogram quantities and readily devour bitter plant material (Metcalf 1994, Tallamy et al. 1998). In addition to WCR, cucurbitacins influence the behaviour of several important crop pests, including Diabrotica balteata LeConte, the banded cucumber beetle, Diabrotica barberi Smith and Lawrence, the northern corn rootworm, Diabrotica undecimpunctata howardi Barber, the southern corn rootworm, and Diabrotica speciosa, a crop pest in Central and South America." Table 4.1 lists the beetles that are phagostimulated by each cucurbitacin analogue found until 2005 (including data unpublished).

Contardi (1939) found the significative attractive effects over cut open fruits of Cucurbita andreana, though in this paper C. maxima floral volatiles are referenced and, sightly modified, signaled as the ones used for insect lures today: (p.81) "Diabrotica spp., in general, have been associated with blossoms of varying Cucurbita spp. (Fronk and Slater 1956, Howe and Rhodes 1976, Bach 1977, Fisher et al. 1984). Andersen and Metcalf (1987)... (found they preferred C. maxima over the other species)" (p.81) "Andersen (1987) identified 22 of the 31 major components of C. maxima floral aroma. Metcalf and Lampman (1991 and references therein) evaluated them for attraction to diabroticite beetles ... Metcalf and Metcalf (1992 and references therein) (developed a 3-component blend as a highly simplified Cucurbita blossom volatile aroma). (p.83) "Metcalf and Metcalf (1992)... added a methoxy group to natural compounds (that) dramatically increased its effectiveness in attracting adult beetles. ... It is these more attractive methoxy analogues of natural compounds which are generally used as lures today".

Finally (p.83-84-85) it mentions some real lures and if they are commercially available, the most effective a new trap developed by Trécé (Salinas, California) containing buffalo gourd root powder. --RoRo (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Bitter skin in "Culinary uses" section

In the "Culinary uses" section it says, without reference: "Although the skins are often bitter". I think this is incorrect. The skin is edible if you cook it enough, for example in the Mexican traditional dessert called "Calabaza en tacha". I have tried this dessert using Argentinian varieties and is edible and tasty. I also cook the squash rind in dog food and they love it. Later in the section it says it's unedible because of the hardiness. I think this is the correct concept. --RoRo (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Added two refs and tweaked wording. HalfGig talk 12:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to insist about this topic. One of the references you added don't refer to the skin but to the whole squash being bitter, something that sometimes happen apparently spontaneously: "Question: Why would cucumbers and squash develop a bitter taste? Answer: This question quickly moved to the top of the stack when my mom recently prepared a “mess” (enough to feed an average family) of squash and they were extremely bitter. When my mom asks me a question she gets an immediate response." I don't have acces to the Chen et al. (2005) paper, ¿do they mention an edible squash with a bitter rind? Because until I know, rind is bitter when meat is bitter. --RoRo (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry again for insist, I have read you changed it for "stems and rinds more bitter than...". It looks like no stems no rinds are edible at maturity because of their bitterness. It is in fact true about stems, that's because only young stems and leaves are edible, but not about the rind. If it is true that skin has more cucurbitacins that the flesh, it is not noticeable by the human taste. That is true in English speaking people with their own varieties also. Check: "I decided, my days of squash wrangling were over. Give me a winter squash whose skin is thin enough to eat, yet which has all the rich flavor of the classic butternut. And, at Stephen’s suggestion, along came the heirloom Cucurbita pepo ‘Delicata’. " http://www.gourmet.com/food/2009/09/delicata-squash Please notice that I don't want to "impose" something I believe just because, it's just that if it is an error it is a big one for people who cooks. --RoRo (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You are referring to a cooking site, whereas I have university-affiliated site saying what I have in the article. And I/the university site didn't say they aren't edible, it says they tend to be more bitter. That's not the same thing and a university site will trump a cooking site any day. HalfGig talk 16:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Please notice that I'm not doubting about the reliability of the information, I doubt about what people could extract as a conclusion by reading the paragraph the way it is. If you check the "university" (and I know what an University is) paragraphs in order to check the quantitative content of cucurbitacins in stem and skin, you may agree with me that you can't put a mature stem and a mature skin in the same concept as if they had the same cucurbitacins concentration. Please notice too that most of the time I copy "university driven" paragraphs but still people who cooks is the people who... cooks, and taxonomists ask people who cook what is edible and what not. Regards. --RoRo (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources for cultivar group versus variety

Currently the page has statements about groups (cultivar groups) that are sourced to papers that talk about varieties. Is it possible to find a consistent taxonomy for each whole species as cultivar groups? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've changed this to more closely match the refs. Pls review to see if it's now acceptable. As we all know, taxonomies in this area are not consistent. HalfGig talk 12:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be an insoluble problem. Now we have "types" in the wording but that is not Type (biology). Perhaps this is a problem that will eventually be dealt with in citable literature, when the 2009 edition of the ICNCP gets more respect among people who write material for agriculturists and gardeners. It would have been nice to have named cultivar groups. Currently we have in the C. pepo table "Ornamental gourds" as a cultivar group, but that is not an acceptable name under the ICNCP. Perhaps it doesn't have a name. The source of the problem may be that there is no registration authority for Cucurbita, as shown hereSminthopsis84 (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. There is no solid solution to this. As mentioned in the article, there is no standard taxonomy, so I picked one of the accepted ones that made sense to me. HalfGig talk 15:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference, "cultivar groups" group plants, "market types" group fruits as found in the market. According to: Andres, T. C. 2004. Diversity in tropical pumpkin (Cucurbita moschata): a review of infraspecific classifications. In: Progress in Cucurbit Genetics and Breeding Research, Proceedings of Cucurbitaceae 2004, the 8th EUCARPIA Meeting on Cucurbit Genetics and Breeding, A. Lebeda y H. S. Paris, ed., Palacky University, Olomouc, pp. 113-118. : "Cucurbita moschata Duchesne is a highly polymorphic domesticate for which have been presented various infraspecific classifications based on fruit shape, geographic origins, and other characteristics. While there are over 120 named cultivars in North America and Europe, the center of diversity lies in the American tropics in the form of innumerable unnamed landraces. These landraces have not been adequately described and do not readily fit into a scheme of cultivar groups. One cultivated field may contain a landrace with variable fruits that fit into more than one market type or are intermediate between two market types. Furthermore, most geographically defined groups, such as Japonica, are not unique to their eponymous regions, but can be found in the center of the diversity of the species. Until a worldwide, thorough, comparative phenotypic and molecular survey of the species is done to show whether there are distinct groups whithin C. moschata, no formal taxonomic infraspecific classification should be used. Informal classifications of market types at the regional level are useful, however, in organizing and communicating some of the diversity. For example, names of market types available in the U.S.A. are butternut squash, winter crookneck squash, cheese pumpkin, and calabaza pumpkin". The same Cucurbita taxonomist that facilitated me that paper, told me that probably the most accepted classification is that of Robinson and Decker-Walters (1997), they use the cultivar groups classification of Paris (1986) for C. pepo, and a "market type" classification of fruits for C. moschata and C. maxima, the last one based on Castetter (1925). --RoRo (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we'll get away with choosing any one classification; we can't take sides. We'll need to explain what the alternatives are (with a ref for each), and ideally describe the strengths and weaknesses of each of them. If they're not clear, we should say so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the problem: "These landraces have not been adequately described and do not readily fit into a scheme of cultivar groups." The various varietites, cross-breeding, etc make this very difficult. Paris is already in the article by name and a ref. Robinson and D-W 1997 is a ref but not mentioned by name. I think it'd suffice to say, as we already do, that there is no standard and we could add something like "one of the more accepted taxonomies is Robinson...." HalfGig talk 18:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That was I was trying to say, thank you HalfGig. I'll just add that in cultivars there is no "the one" taxonomy. Check this article of the Code (Brickell et al. 2009): "Art. 3.4. A cultivar, plant or combination thereof that constitutes part of one Group might also be designated as belonging to another Group, should such assignments have a practical purpose. Ex. 10. Solanum tuberosum ‘Desiree’ may be designated part of a Maincrop Group and a Red-skinned Group since both such designations may be practical to buyers of potatoes. It may thus be written Solanum tuberosum (Maincrop Group) ‘Desiree’ in one classification or as Solanum tuberosum (Red-skinned Group) ‘Desiree’ in another, depending on the purpose of the classification used." --RoRo (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is of use here, I have just read that according to Paris et al. (2012) there is a classification of C. pepo "gourds" in: Paris, H. S. 2000. History of the cultivar–groups of Cucurbita pepo. Horticultural Reviews 25(2001):71–170, 4 pl. It divides the ornamental gourds in 3 cultivar groups, in the Table 1 of Paris et al. (2012) they are listed as: Cucurbita pepo subsp. pepo "Round, Smooth-rinded Group" (example 'Orange', descr. "Spherical to oblate with flattened or depressed ends, smooth"); Cucurbita pepo subsp. texana "Oviform, Smooth-rinded Group" (example 'Pear', descr. "Oval to pyriform, smooth"); and Cucurbita pepo subsp. pepo "Warted Group" (example 'Orange Warted', descr: "Spherical, oblate, and others, warted"). --RoRo (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Festivals

I was looking at recent edits to the article and I saw this sentence that Chiswick Chap had moved from one place to another (which was fine). I had seen it about a week ago, too. I am really puzzled by this sentence. It is:

• The large red-orange pumpkins used for Halloween in the United States are C. maxima, not to be confused with the orange type used for jack-o-lanterns, which are C. pepo.

I don't understand what "used for Halloween in the United States" means. Besides not knowing what "used for Halloween" means, I don't understand the mention of two different colors/types of pumpkins related to the celebration of Halloween in the United States. The only things (besides competitions for the largest pumpkin and pumpkin-chucking contests) we do with pumpkins are:

• make pumpkin pie
• put them out on porches and lawns as decoration, and
• take out the seeds and carve them into faces -- I think these are jack-o-lanterns.

However, in my experience, only one kind of pumpkin is used for all three, and it is orange, not reddish-orange. I've never seen a reddish-orange pumpkin used for anything. Perhaps just for decoration, but they're unusual compared to the orange one. CorinneSD (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If I understand your doubt, it's because there are two different "groups" of cultivars, one for each of the "Halloween" species. I should call them informal Halloween groups, no taxonomist made those formal groups. The difference is for the horticulturist, he normally wants to know with what its plant will intercross and with what not. Check this: "Cucurbita maxima 'Big max'. "These pumpkins are excellent for monster Jack O'Lanterns. This variety is often advertised as being capable of reaching 100 pounds. In my own experience, they have only reached 30 to 50 pounds, but this is still larger than your typical 20 pound Jack O'Lantern. The skin has an excellent colour, a nice bright orange. The flesh of this pumpkin is 3" to 4" thick and thus can be somewhat more difficult to carve in comparison to other pumpkins. Read more: http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/56630/#ixzz3Hl6onSyM " http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/56630/

• 
  Cucurbita maxima 'Big Max'
• 
  The biggest Cucurbita pepo looks like this.

I'm not sure if I clarified your question. --RoRo (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don't think I've ever even seen the one on the left, the reddish-orange one. That's why I am puzzled by the sentence. The orange ones are ubiquitous here in October, and they come in all sizes and shapes, including round. CorinneSD (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't be of help about that, the literature always mentions the "monster" C. maxima varieties for that, but is also common that literature mentions tiny things in all the reviews until for the readers they become relevant ones. --RoRo (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've changed this around. Jackolantern/Halloween pumpkins are usually C. pepo var Connecticut Field. The pumpkins used in pie are mostly C. moschata and if you're talk the Libbey's cans, the Dickenson Select variety of C. moschata, used Libbey's grows on farms near Morton, Illinois. HalfGig talk 20:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, ok, so the sentence needs to be turned round, jack-o-lanterns first. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I haven't seen a different kind of pumpkin used for pie because it always comes already prepared in a can. CorinneSD (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

A Dickinson Select looks like this, see caption, it's the photo just below the small orange one. Dickinson's are NOT very orangey. HalfGig talk 01:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow! They're almost yellow. They're just about the same color as butternut squash. CorinneSD (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry again for my.., interruption, taxonomy sources are pretty clear about that (that doesn't means that every person has to agree about the term), canners use different varieties for the puree, "pumpkin pie" it's its name, independently of what squash/pumpkin is used for that. Check:

Robinson & Decker-Walters (1997) p. 77: "Commercially canned pumpkin pie mix may be made of C. pepo, C. maxima or C. moschata. Although C. pepo has a long tradition of use in the USA, fruits of the other two species produce better baked pies. Cultivars of C. moschata and C. maxima are also processed and sold as canned or frozen winter squash. Canners prefer cultivars with an orange rind; if a small piece of the skin is inadvertently included in the canned product, it is less noticeable than with green-fruited cultivars. Orange, carotene-rich fruits of C. maxima that are also fine in texture and flavour are mashed into jarred baby food.".

In 1937 it was the same. Whitaker, Thomas W. & G. W. Bohn. The taxonomy, genetics, production and uses of the cultivated species of Cucurbita. Economic Botany 4(1):52-81. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4251961. : "The large-fruited and heavy-yielding varieties having yellow or light-colored rinds are the most desirable for canning. The green-skinned varieties are more difficult to handle so as to prevent discoloration of the canned product by green tissue that may be missed in removing the rind. To meet the requirements of the commercial canning trade a variety must be a heavy yielder, and the fruits must have flesh of the proper color and texture. Flavor is not an important factor in the selection of canning varieties as it can be controlled to some extent by the canner. Tests made in using different varieties for pie-making show that the flavor is so influenced by spices and other ingredients that the original flavor is not very important where the product is used for pies". This paragraph citing Thompson, R. C. 1937. Production of pumpkins and squashes. U. S. Dept. Agr., Leaf. 141. 8 pp

I have those two at hand but every taxonomist says more or less the same about "pumpkin pie" varieties. Please notice that it's not my interest to "impose" anything, it's just it could be a mistake to call "pumpkin" a particular variety because it is used for canning. Taxonomists could be wrong or not, this is not my thought. --RoRo (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Medical claims

I'm a bit concerned about the medical content in the article. Under Nutrients the article says Pumpkins have anti-diabetic, antioxidant, anticarcinogen, and anti-inflammatory pharmacological properties. This is quite a list of very powerful claims, is the sourcing really strong enough to support it? For example the source for "anti-diabetic" says in the abstract "Various important medicinal properties including anti-diabetic" but the primary sourcing cited is not very strong and the actual section on it concludes with "By considering all these facts, it can be concluded that pumpkin has potential anti-diabetic properties, which may suggest the inclusion of this plant in anti-diabetic regimens to treat human diabetes. However, further studies in detail are warranted to explore the mechanistic and therapeutic potential of pumpkins for diabetes." which is much more heavily qualified than the article content. The sourcing cited talks about what "local healers recommend" and cites animal and in vitro studies, I don't see any human studies at all. What's also important but missing is any kind of correlation between how much must be consumed and in what form, and what kind of health effect might result. Zad68 02:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zad68 (talk · contribs). Thank you for commenting here. I haven't seen anything with the level of detail mentioned in your last sentence. We can cut the parts you mention. But this leads me to ask: With the medical parts already cut/commented out due to SandyGeorgia's comments above, are people at at FAC going to ask something like "Why isn't there more medical content?" and what could we do about it that will meet MEDRS? HalfGig talk

Well as SandyGeorgia noted the requirements are "comprehensive, well-researched". This doesn't mean you have to include content if there isn't good sourcing for it. If there isn't excellent sourcing available, you should be able to defend that at FAC by noting you did a comprehensive search for high-quality medical sourcing and couldn't find any, if that's the situation. That should get OK's from regulars at FAC who understand the importance of good sourcing.

With that, I'm not saying to remove the content, because it is based on an up-to-date, MEDLINE-indexed review article which checks the (effectively) necessary-but-not-sufficient WP:MEDRS boxes, but rather to reflect the quality of the evidence in the article. It could be more qualified, like "Animal and in vitro experiments suggest that..." Zad68 03:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

HalfGig, I've been too busy to get back here and follow up, but you are in great hands with Zad68 (I agree with what he has posted above, except I haven't actually had time to look at any of the sources, and have only read the abstracts). If/when you go to FAC, please ping me. If I don't respond, please email me (I am not always active). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. I've added "Animal and in vitro experiments suggest that..." in front of that statement Zad68 noticed. Any other suggestions? I'm sorry I'm having so much trouble with the MEDRS stuff. HalfGig talk 12:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It's plainly greatly improved. You are right to be careful; and Zad68 is right to say we should feel certain a comprehensive search has been done for medical sources before we start FAC, so we (including Zad) can confidently defend whatever claims we choose to go with. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm doing a more careful search and some reading. Just wanting to let you know I'm looking into it. Zad68 02:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zad68: Are you still working on this? Just checking. HalfGig talk 13:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I got really busy towards the end of December. I intend to return to it but I've been having some time-wasting things happening eating up my Wiki-time. But at this point, please don't wait on me, sorry... Zad68 04:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zad68:, I understand. Before you said you were researching. Do you have notes or references you can point us to? HalfGig talk 13:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really medical

This is not "C. ficifolia is used to make soft and mildly alcoholic drinks.[8] The fruit pulp of some species, such as C. foetidissima, can be used as a soap or detergent,[3][126][127] and buffalo gourd oil, made from Cucurbita foetidissima, was also made into soap.[126]" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. But is it enough to warrant it's own section or should we rename the section to "Medical and other uses"? Or can we merge it into an existing section. HalfGig talk 03:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Made a 'Cosmetics' section, and put the drinks sentence into 'Culinary'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the exact text that supports

"High doses of C. ficifolia have been shown to be reduce blood sugar levels."? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

On page 390 of ref 3 it says "C. ficifolia, has been shown to reduce blood sugar but only with high dosage (Andrade-Cetto and Heinrich 2005)." and here it is in more detail but I can't read the whole article. No access. @Doc James: If you have access that'd be great. HalfGig talk 03:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey HalfGig you can pretty easily find a full-text download of that source just by Googling the title. The source is a 2005 review article from a MEDLINE-indexed journal, but the journal is Journal of Ethnopharmacology and it seems to bridge the subjects of medicine and sociology. That current sentence Doc James identified is probably not supportable by the source, probably need to be qualified as "Herbalists in Mexico use C. ficifolia in the belief that..." Zad68 03:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Reading the source, it's citing test results in animals (rabbits, mice, rats), and only one study in humans is cited. This is generally not considered per WP:MEDRS strong enough make the unqualified claim, I'll adjust. Zad68 03:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Zad68 Thank you! HalfGig talk 04:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Two concerns: 1-the culinary and medical sections are very short, only 2 and 3 sentences respectively. Will this be a problem at FAC? 2-On my computer, the Christmas tree photo sticks down to the end of See Also. HalfGig talk 12:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the worst that can happen on those fronts is that we're asked to merge sections and move the image up a little: but it's unknowable; and nobody ever got through FAC without making some changes. We're bound to get comments at that level, at least. If that's the sum of concerns, I think we should get on with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Alternative medicine section

You really can't call a discussion of use in alternate medicine "Medicinal uses". It's questionable whether such things are ever that appropriate, especially when, as here, there's little evidence that any of the uses are particularly widespread.

It's particularly bad when one of the sentences - the one on eye health - was, when I checked not justified by the sources. If you can show me wrong, without using WP:SYNTH, do so here; don't readd this before then. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I just checked the sources for the Traditional Chinese Medicine section. Abstract of http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-73739-8_51 : "It is not officially listed in the Chinese Pharmacopoeia."

So.. it's not actually officially used in traditional Chinese medicine, so has to be deleted, and we're left with a single sentence claim about Mexican herbalists as the only thing to have passed any sort of review so far. I think, at this point, FAC should be a bit embarrassed at their review, but let's let that pass. I don't think there's enough here to even pass muster as a section. We're basically down to "some people think it might improve blood sugar levels" - an incredibly weak claim, not appropriate to an otherwise excellent article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hold on, the abstract actually says "The seeds of Cucurbita moschata Duch. (Cucurbitaceae) were used originally in traditional Chinese medicine as an ascaricidal agent for treatment of human ascari-asis. It was then found to be active in inhibiting the growth of immature Schistosoma japonicum and was used clinically for treatment of schistosomiasis. It is not officially listed in the Chinese Pharmacopoeia." In other words, Cucurbita seeds have certainly been used in traditional Chinese medicine, even if they aren't any more. This is perfectly mentionable in the article. I agree with you that the section should be called Alternative or Traditional medicine, but if we agree on that then there is no reason at all to remove a cited statement on the seeds. Of course we can discuss the wording of that statement if need be. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure: I'd like to see evidence of it being reasonably widespread. I mean, let's face it, I'm not sure I believe a source that claims simple, easy herbal cures of Schistosoma japonicum when http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=cucurbita+Schistosoma+japonicum&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= shows, at best, a few mouse studies and a screening test back in 1960. Most of the sources making bolder claims are non-MEDRS or borderline MEDRS.

In short, it appears the source is a relatively questionable book source that just happens to be published by Springer, and we need a proper study to push it over MEDRS. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Just a note that in addition to the posting at WP:FN I also asked folks to Wikiproject Medicine to check out the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and let me just say this here: I think that, in general, this is a very, very good article, and everyone should be praised for their work on it. But, frankly, working with alt-med sources is a specialized skill. It's not hard to find someone making very big claims for any major plant or animal, particularly in books. As such, I don't think my objection here should be taken to criticize anything outside of this short section. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Good of you to say so, thank you. I'm not quite sure, though, why we need to be so picky about MEDRS when the question is just "whether or not some seeds were once historically used in alternative medicine". I think the Springer book is actually easily a good enough mandate for that rather limited and not very medical claim. Bit like saying something was in Dioscorides.Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite simply, the sources being used are not evidence for what you want to say. You want to say it was used in traditional chinese medicine for the treatment of two diseases. What you have is apparently a couple dodgy sources that don't show any sort of widespread usage, and even says they are not part of the pharmacopia. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record we/I had THREE MEDRS peoples review this section before the FAC was even filed. These people were Doc J, Sandy Georgia, and Zad68. They made many beneficial edits to that section. Adam, why were you not present then nor at FAC and why is okay for you to unilaterly make these changes all on your own? HalfGig talk 18:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

That's how Wikipedia works, my good fellow. I note that no-one is suggesting the eye health statement be readded, for instance, because it wasn't in the sources. You're basically asrguing that even though one statement wasn't backed by sources, everything should be sacrosanct. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's jacked up, especially the way you went about this. You should started a discussion. I did not say anything about sacrosanct. Delete the article. Take the star away. I really don't care anymore. I'm taking it off my watchlist. HalfGig talk 23:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Ditto, taking it off my watch list as well. This battle about MEDRS is totally at odds with what I thought was a very well reasoned discussion at WT:PLANTShere. As HalfGig says below, the article-rating systems are seriously flawed, are a major cause of editor loss, are hurting wikipedia and should be removed. "We first must determine if it's actually in widespread use for each particular altmed to be mentioned" would require WP:OR. That's enough for me, calling it quits. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It's exceedingly easy to show that pumpkin seeds, for one, are widely used in alternative medicine (just google "pumpkin seeds prostate"). There are primary sources evaluating their use in the treatment of benign prostate enlargement (see the list under "View clinical references ..." here or this article). (Disclosure: they were recommended to me by the consultant at my local NHS hospital.) So it's not a case of "some seeds were once historically used in alternative medicine": they are used currently in alternative medicine and have been the subject of respectable research. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

That should be more than sufficient mandate to restore a suitable statement about their use in alt. med. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

But not to restore discussion of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Indeed, you still haven't given a reliable source that could be used for a prostate treatment. The problem is that every plant has probably been claimed to treat almost anything at some point by some random person. This is a WP:FRINGE issues: While it might well be appropriate in theory to mention alt med, we first must determine if it's actually in widespread use for each particular altmed to be mentioned, as a necessary prerequisite to its inclusion. Otherwise, we may as well just say that Cucurbita is used in, then copy Category:Alternative medicine, under the assumption that someone, somewhere probably used it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

On the subject of whether it should be called ==Medicinal uses==: Modern mainstream medicine doesn't have a trademark on what is, or was, "medicine". Any substance that is taken with the intent to treat a disease or perceived medical condition, no matter how pointless or even harmful it is, is being used "medicinally". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite simply, I'm the editor of the Signpost's Featured content section; as such, I have to review and summarize the articles in question. I was reviewing it to write a summary, found that, checked the sources, and was appalled. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Also Sprach Adam. A whole group of editors work on an article for months and one person can come along and undo all by himself on solely his opinion. So much for consensus. So much for collaboration. You didn't even try a discussion at first--just started whacking away. I regret ever having started working on this article. Let's delete the article, then there won't be anything to argue over. What a waste of time this was. I see more and more why wiki has the lousy reputation it does in the real world. HalfGig talk 23:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I agree with you about the prostate stuff, and about how little it matters how many MEDRS reviewers lent a hand (very kind of them, they're busy people). The new sources may well be useful, and we should use them, rather than arguing. That will lead to a different alt.med. text, not to the original one. Since the old stuff has become a controversial muddle, I've removed it for now. If we can agree a new form of words based on definite evidence, then we can put something back - I suggest complete with full quotes of exactly what is being claimed by the sources' authors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Honestly, if we can find a decent source to show that it's a reasonably mainstream usage by any firld of alternative medicine, I'm for including it. I just don't think that bar's been hit yet. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Adam Cuerden I'd like you to step back for a minute and think. You have several professional botanists who have been working on this article for months. You have three people with a medical background review the article. You have a peer review that took weeks and an FAC review which I believe was successful. You have editors who are still willing to make minor changes in response to your concerns but others, the ones who worked the most on the article, are so upset they are considering leaving Wikipedia. Apart from the fact that you made changes to the article after all these reviews without beginning a discussion first and gaining consensus, why do you think that your point of view trumps everyone else's? CorinneSD (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: One of the sentences, when I checked the sources, literally had no evidence. There was a claim about eye health, it seemed a little bit of a stretch. I checked. Neither sources listed eyes. They did back Cucurbita having nutrients, but not the claim actually made. I'm sure this is a relic of something added to the article long before they got here. After which, I checked the other sources. They were, at best, questionable.

I'm not against Alt med being included. But an FA is held to the highest standards, and that section, as written, didn't make it. I'm a bit shocked, frankly, that simply pointing out a problem with the evidence being used in a three-sentence section of the article, for which I believe no-one is advocating for one of the three sentences anymore, is considered worthy of this much drama. I expected this to become a discussion, possibly with better evidence being provided. Instead, it became a discussion of whether it was okay to criticize an FA, which, of course, it always is, that's the fundamental premise of Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There's been a few edits going on and various discussions (some not on content but folks getting hung up on this being a FA), so just for a reoritentation, what exactly is the content that's under dispute right now? I'd say Adam Cuerden has some legitimate concerns. Obviously people put a lot of work into making something an FA, but that does not mean an editor cannot come in with changes as we never consider articles perfect. At this point, it's irrelevant whether this is an FA or not as we're focusing solely on content here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the text under discussion can be simplified as such:

• Title of the section: "Medicinal uses" is generally taken to imply mainstream medicine, "Use in alternative medicine" is more specific.
• Eye health sentence: I don't think this is under dispute, actually. Quite simply, it was unsupported by sources, which showed it was nutritious, but didn't even mention the word "eye". Pure WP:OR, or, more likely, a dodgy source was removed at some point, and no-one noticed the remaining sources didn't actually back the claims.
• Use in Traditional Chinese Medicine sentence: One source said it was not in the Chinese pharmacopia. There was no particularly good source to show it was ever a common treatment in Chinese medicine, and, indeed, the discussion Sminthopsis84 linked to points out that this sort of source is very dodgy for making such claims.
• Use in Mexican herbal medicine: I'm more-or-less fine with this, actually. The major problem with this is that a single sentence isn't really a stand-alone section, but, perhaps expanded a bit, this probably is a reasonable inclusion.
• Lead statements: it's hard to say, based on what evidence we have, that very weak evidence use in Traditional Chinese Medicine, and being one of 306 species used in Mexican herbal medicine to attempt to treat diabetes] could allow us to say it has an "important" use in medicine. Also, if the TCM use isn't accepted, we're not left with a sourced use for its seeds in alternative medicine in the article.

In short, we can do better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I remember this being mentioned at the university at some lecture, the seeds being used as wormicide - in Europe, but than that was a lecture. We always had it pointed out at our lectures if a plant had medicinal effects or was used as a medicine, as a rutine part of the botanic studies. I also had a book that stated the same fact, can't acces it right now. I don't really know about the rest. Though, I don't expect Wikiproject:Medicine to know this, try instead Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants or something like that. Hafspajen (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with Adam's assertion that medicinal implies mainstream medicine. In fact, I rarely encounter that word in mainstream medical contexts. It's largely used by herbalists these days. (Check it out for yourself: do a search in Google Books on "medicinal". You'll get a handful of medicinal chemistry textbooks, and dozens and dozens of botanical and herbal books.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Does it matter? Your claim is that it might not be as ambiguous as it could be. "Alternative medicine" is, however, as unambiguous as we're likely to get, unless you prefer "In herbalism". Why risk confusion in the first place? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants# Fast input requested. Hafspajen (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That's very good of you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, this seems relatively easy then (not seeing where all the fuss is). On the title, I see no issues choosing something other than medicinal uses to be more specific and it seems like a good move. I'd go with folk medicine personally, but alternative is ok. There isn't really that much folk medicine info though, so I'd just lump whatever is included under Cultural uses instead for a section header. I'd agree with eye health/OR statement. No need to mention eye health, and nutrient information is already included. I'd remove the TCM claim since there isn't a source to really support it for now. Herbal usage falls under folk use and seems fine as is. In all honesty, I think the current version [1] with this content removed looks plenty fine and should be good to forward as the FA.

Otherwise, the only addition I could really see at this point is that the acaricide, etc. content could be readded without the TCM claims. It's not even needed in a folk medicine section, but simply that cucurbitine found in pumpkin seeds reduces juvenile blood-fluke survival and reduces the ability of adults to reproduce. [2] Basically this stresses that there's an interesting chemical, but not advocating any medical use. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Scratch that on TCM. The source specifically states (at least related to schistosomiasis, "Various preparations extracted from more than 1000 different Chinese plants, selected serendipitously or intentionally as the drugs had already been used in the Chinese traditional medicinal literature". So, authors are saying the plant was used in TCM. I'll put in a modified piece of content for this bit shortly, but I'll leave the acaricide content out for now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Be careful: I think that's only supported by mouse studies and initial screenings, which fails WP:MEDRS for any actual medical claims based on it. And, y'know. If it's 1000 plants, even if they're all used, that's probably going to get at least some very marginal usages in TCM. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that was carefully crafted to be MEDRS compliant and avoid the issues you were bringing up. The main thing is that we are not saying it is an actual medical treatment prescribed by doctors or science, but instead that there is a compound within that has some properties, nothing more. It is perfectly fine to mention mouse studies exactly as such when secondary sources indicate they have important findings. Per MEDRS though, we need a secondary source to say such studies are important rather than citing the primary study ourselves (we can't determine weight of a primary study as Wikipedians). We also can't extrapolate mouse studies to human health, which we don't do here. As for the 1000 plants bit, we're not commenting on the validity of TCM (it's largely pseudoscience even if they occasionally get something right by chance), but simply that the pumpkin seeds were used in TCM. Nothing more. There are definitely concerns to be had when delving into fringe territory, but they don't particularly apply to the content the way it is currently written, so I'm pretty content now in terms of WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, my issue is, for example, it's hard to find very much of anything that someone hasn't used in homeopathy. But we wouldn't want to add homeopathy to very nearly every plant in existence. So there's certainly a line to draw beyond which the use within the system of alternative medicine is too fringe even within that system to be mentioned. I'm not quite convinced that Cucurbita in TCM is on the right side of the line, given we have a source explicitly saying it's not in the Chinese Pharmacoepia (which, if anything like a Homeopathic Pharmacoepia, can actually be rather important from a legal perspective), and no source saying it ever was in any sort of such list. I would consider not being on such lists a big warning sign that something might be a fringe treatment (that shouldn't be mentioned) within that system of alternative medicine, and would want the section to be quite well sourced to get it.

Also, of course, the blood-fluke survival studies aren't really TCM, are they? It's not like any source is saying that it was used to treat schistosomiasis before that screening.

As for what I'd consider a good source for including it? Well, off-hand, and, obviously, there's going to be a lot of other good sources, Chairman Mao when setting up the barefoot doctors - which I think is pretty much the start of modern TCM - had, I believe, guides for treatments printed up for them to use. If one of those suggested Cucurbita, that would probably be, in itself enough to waive all concerns. Any other unambiguously important guide to TCM would do just as well. But if we're just searching for Cucurbita and "traditional Chinese medicine", we need to be a bit more selective, as we're rather throwing out any result that doesn't list Cucurbita from the start. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Accidentally deleted my first response so quickly; since this was a literature review, that's about as reliable of a source we get. Reviews are what establish weight of an idea, so that's exactly what we'd need in this case. If something was incorrect in the literature review, we'd need another source that says they are not used (which I don't think we'll ever find). We can't really dispute what a literature review like this says without someone basically saying they're wrong. Not being included in other sources doesn't necessarily mean that. That's the double edged sword that comes with literature reviews, so I don't see any changes that would occur at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask which source you mean? I may be missing something. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This [3]. Now that I'm logged out of my lab computer I realized that it's behind a paywall, so the content I was skimming through can't be seen by other folks if they aren't on a university computer. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That does look like a good source for this, with a bit of care to not go beyond the source in making claims about how widespread it was. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Some sources on its use in traditional Chinese medicine you might consider using -

• Essentials of Chinese Medicine
• Practical Therapeutics of Traditional Chinese Medicine
• A Practical Dictionary of Chinese Medicine
• The Complete Herbal Guide also mentions its use by American Indians
• Chinese Medicine in Fertility Disorders
• Important Helminth Infections in Southeast Asia some research in the 1950s and 60s.
• Pharmacology and Applications of Chinese Materia Medica, Volume 2 More details here including clinical studies. Hzh (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

As you can see from my edits recently made, your referencing format is atrocious and as CorinneSD points out, the verb tenses in this "improved" section is atrocious. See her talk page. HalfGig talk 21:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

TFA Date

Why is this scheduled for Sep 19? That has no connection of significance to the topic that I know of. Can we get this changed to either Canadian or American Thanksgiving?

ty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.112.128.15 (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit

I noticed this edit to Cucurbita: [4]. The sentence is now ungrammatical. I'll leave it to the botanists to fix. Corinne (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I tried a couple of re-writes; what's meant, I think, is that the annuals are mostly mesophytes and the perennials xerophytes. @Corinne: does it read this way now? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Peter coxhead Well, at least it's grammatically correct now, and it is clearer. I wanted to ask you about this part of the first sentence:

• Most Cucurbita species are climbing annual vines and mesophytes...

This could be understood as "Most Cucurbita species are either climbing annual vines or mesophytes", or "Most Cucurbita species are a combination of climbing annual vines and mesophytes", with mesophytes being something different from climbing annual vines. To make it absolutely clear that "most Cucurbita species are both, how about this:

• Most Cucurbita species are climbing annual vines; they are also mesophytes, plants which require...

or:

• Most Cucurbita species are climbing annual vines; they are also mesophytes, plants that require...

The rest is O.K. (I wonder why xerophytes grow in tropical areas; it rains a lot in tropical areas. Is it because the perennials grow in the dry season?) – Corinne (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Corinne: sinfully, I had only glanced at the source given for this information (Nee, 1990). Re-reading it, I don't think what was written was quite correct. The source says "Cucurbita has been divided into two groups: (1) the arid zone perennials with storage roots; and (2) the more mesophytic annuals or short-lived perennials without storage roots. ... The five domesticated species of Cucurbita have arisen from the mesophytic group." So:

• One group are mesophytes and annuals or short-lived perennials, the other group are xerophytes.
• The article seems to have interpreted "arid zone" to mean both "xerophytic" and "tropical"; the latter isn't justifiable.
• Nowhere in Nee (1990) can I find support for the idea that most Cucurbita species are mesophytes, only that most or all domesticated species are mesophytes.

So I've re-written this bit as per the source; it's then less paraphrased, which can be a problem with regards to plagiarism. Sigh... See what you think. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

Would question the recent edits made by Zefr - apart from bulldozing a featured article - the removal of material is said to be justified on the grounds that refs are not MEDRS would point out that the article is not part of the WP:Medicine project --Iztwoz (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Iztwoz: it's irrelevant that the article as a whole isn't part of WP:MED. If any article makes medical claims, then it's subject to WP:MEDRS – please read it. I haven't checked Zefr's edit in this case, but I've always found his judgement sound on WP:MEDRS-related issues. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cucurbita. 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/20131016003715/http://www.botgard.ucla.edu/html/botanytextbooks/economicbotany/Cucurbita/ to http://www.botgard.ucla.edu/html/botanytextbooks/economicbotany/Cucurbita/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cucurbita. 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/20150924160527/http://www.ars-grin.gov/npgs/cgc_reports/squash95.pdf to http://www.ars-grin.gov/npgs/cgc_reports/squash95.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130413065928/http://www.prolocovenzone.it/Areas/GeneralInformation/FestaDellaZucca.aspx to http://www.prolocovenzone.it/Areas/GeneralInformation/FestaDellaZucca.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130804165532/http://lafiestanacional.com.ar/fiesta-nacional-del-zapallo/ to http://lafiestanacional.com.ar/fiesta-nacional-del-zapallo/

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) 20:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cucurbita. 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/20150924115025/http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/splist.pl?3164 to http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/splist.pl?3164
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129042743/http://web.missouri.edu/~hibbardb/CV_files/Tallamy%20et%20al%20chap04%20proof.pdf to http://web.missouri.edu/~hibbardb/CV_files/Tallamy%20et%20al%20chap04%20proof.pdf

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) 18:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cucurbita. 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/20140116140049/http://www.hsc.csu.edu.au/agriculture/production/3359/plant_hormones_answers.htm to http://www.hsc.csu.edu.au/agriculture/production/3359/plant_hormones_answers.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141018144126/http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/10/12/smashing-success-crowd-watches-as-pumpkin-dropped-on-old-car--all-for-a-gourd-cause to http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/10/12/smashing-success-crowd-watches-as-pumpkin-dropped-on-old-car--all-for-a-gourd-cause

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) 21:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cucurbita. 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/20141111011222/http://festivaldaabobora.pt/bem-vindo/ to http://festivaldaabobora.pt/bem-vindo/

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) 06:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)