Talk:Potato/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Wrong energy RDA

In the comparison table the value for RDA Energy (which is listed in kJ) is 2000-2500 but this value is actually valid for kilocalories (2000 calories ~ 8400 kJ). Can someone update with the correct data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashu2k (talk • contribs) 10:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Also the energy values are generally incorrect. For example, 100g of rice definitely doesn't contain 1549 kJ or 1549 kcal. That section of the article is incredibly poorly written and has false information all over it. Can someone please do something to fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:8084:FA00:4CCD:7B0F:4BB3:D45 (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2016

I would like to add Charlotte potatoes to the list of potato varieties. LobsterLover (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

China

China is the dominate country. It is the homeland  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:A803:4C00:EDC7:CDBD:C601:647F (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC) 

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2017

193.144.47.33 (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2017

Please add Finland to this list of countries where new potatoes are considered a delicacy. "In Germany, Northern and Eastern Europe, especially in Scandinavian countries and Finland, Poland, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, newly harvested, early ripening varieties are considered a special delicacy." This source lists Hankkijan Timo and Siikli as the most common new potato varieties grown in Finland. The article also describes the new potato as a delicacy. 89.166.121.51 (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Done — Train2104 (t • c) 05:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

What is potato spirit oil - bp 268°

Also found after whisky distillation : As described in [1] p85 by Apjohn 1840 and previously by Dumas ? 268°F = 131.1°C - They thought it was C5H6O but it Looks like (from p127) in 1840 they had the atomic weight of Hydrogen wrong (thinking water was HO) and it should be C5H12O - could be Isoamyl alcohol - Rod57 (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Potato. 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/20090211003132/http://grande.nal.usda.gov/ibids/index.php?mode2=detail&origin=ibids_references&therow=728718 to http://grande.nal.usda.gov/ibids/index.php?mode2=detail&origin=ibids_references&therow=728718
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130114151638/http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567 to http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091015055455/http://www.soilassociation.org/Certification/Servicesforlicensees/Forms/Horticultureandarable/tabid/406/Default.aspx to http://www.soilassociation.org/Certification/Servicesforlicensees/Forms/Horticultureandarable/tabid/406/Default.aspx

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

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) 19:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Sir Walter Raleigh

   The article claims that the Spanish brought potatoes to Europe in the second half of the sixteenth century, but was not the potato brought to Britain by Sir Walter Raleigh?Vorbee (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Subheading on mobile app

There's a subheading on the mobile app that reads: "For the potato, use Q16587531". Can someone help me fix it? Matuko 16:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Potato. 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/20141009210148/http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/gmo/popups/55.potato_eh92_527_1.html to http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/gmo/popups/55.potato_eh92_527_1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100531073525/http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/492.docu.html to http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/492.docu.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2017

Reference # 50 is pointing to an old page that no longer is available, therefore, it is pointing to a dead page. The new page for this is: http://www.potatoesusa.com/potato-products/seed-potatoes Thank you for updating to the correct URL. We wish to provide visitors a better user experience. Potatoesusa (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Strange case, but there seems to exist another wikidata set for this entry

82.177.40.227 (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16587531

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Potato. 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/20080908122706/http://www.cipotato.org/pressroom/press_releases_detail.asp?cod=55 to http://www.cipotato.org/pressroom/press_releases_detail.asp?cod=55
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120816144218/http://potatoassociation.org/documents/A_ProductionHandbook_Final_000.pdf to http://potatoassociation.org/documents/A_ProductionHandbook_Final_000.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lanra.uga.edu/potato/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071113023215/http://www.plantbreeding.wur.nl/potatopedigree/ to http://www.plantbreeding.wur.nl/potatopedigree/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110110060013/http://www.gmo-safety.eu/topic/122 to http://www.gmo-safety.eu/topic/122
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090901131250/http://www.potatogenome.net/ to http://potatogenome.net/

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) 21:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal Talk:Creamer_potato#Merger proposal

Add to start of article: "{{merge|creamer potato|discuss=Talk:Creamer_potato#Merger proposal|date=December 2017}}" 198.84.171.88 (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: This is a minor edit only, and appropriate. However, I used the {{mergefrom}} template instead. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you 198.84.171.88 (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2018

Paragraph one: The green leaves and green skins of tubers exposed to the light are toxic.[citation needed]

edit to

Tubers produce [glycoalkaloids] in small amounts. If green sections (sprouts and skins) of the plant are exposed to light the tuber can produce a high enough concentration of [glycoalkaloids] to affect human health. [41,42]

for clarity and citation Medmanschultzy (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

addition -- family Solanaceae (etc.)

The opening paragraph could be better. No mention is made of the botanical family name -- Solanaceae -- which is standard practice in most plant articles. The details about the poisonous nature of the green, while accurate, gets a bit deep in the weeds for a first paragraph that is also talking about the significance of potatoes as a world food crop. If you want to talk about the poison, start a new paragraph where you can also throw in some history about how slowly the potato was accepted by Europeans as an edible food, (poisonous nightshades were known in the old world). Then you can expand the first paragraph with a better overview about the potato's general significance in food, commerce, history, botany, or add something about its name origins.

Thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Pt 2

Time and edits do not improve all articles. Scanning historic versions of this article, I find that there are better versions from a few years ago, at least when it comes to the lede. Sometimes collective wisdom is collective muddle. While I could copy and paste/replace from an older version, this would truly vex some folk. I'm surprised that there is not an agreed-to formula / model of what goes (and doesn't go) into an introductory paragraphs for each of more common food plants.

GeeBee60 (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018

216.48.134.139 (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

the potato is brown

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Potato Protein

I made an edit covering the usefulness of potato protein as an ingredient, it got reversed-out completely due to the references I used being commercial (though I have no commercial interest in it). I still think potato protein is worth covering, could someone else have a go at it?Back ache (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have evidence-based reasons for thinking it "worth covering"? If you do, the sources shouldn't be hard to find; if not, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Productivity =

Please, remove the graph "Global production of potatoes in 2008", because this is misleading and has totally absurd data (the scale of productivity per ha goes up to 600 KG / ha only, but actual potato productivity goes well above 40 000 kg per hectare. A quote from http://www.fao.org/potato-2008/en/potato/cultivation.html - "With good agricultural practices, including irrigation when necessary, a hectare of potato in the temperate climates of northern Europe and North America can yield more than 40 tonnes of fresh tubers within four months of planting. In most developing countries, however, average yields are much lower - ranging from as little as five tonnes to 25 tonnes ...". 600 kg/ha is almost 10 times less, than even the lowest indicated average for developing countries.--90.191.1g6.98 (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Texas is North?

On the potato page on Wikipedia, it says, "As far North as Texas", however, Texas is in the South. Is this a mistake or is it correct? I'm a bit confused. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.126.243 (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

"North" as in comparison to Peru/South America.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hatnote

@FlightTime: It already was stable; no valid reason was given for its removal. I explained in detail why it was there, and your revert was inappropriate. As a side note, I'm not edit warring any more than you here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

And I disagree with your reasoning, please seek consensus for your change. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

You've given no reason for your disagreement; you're simply being tendentious. In what way does this not belong? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

They're two editors contesting your change, myself and @Wbm1058:, consensus seems to be required. As I said, in my opinion it's a stab at including non-notable trivia. Good luck, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Make that 3. Why is it necessary to add this random factoid? SmartSE (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Smartse: It's not a random factoid, it's for people that were looking for the Quayle incident and got redirected here instead; this is exactly what {{redirect}} is for. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Extremely far-fetched that anyone would be looking for that. A very old incident that did not merit its own article and unlikely search term. In most cases, we don't do redirects to something that's not even considered that notable in the grand scheme of things. Anyway, I've protected due to the edit-warring. Enigma^msg 22:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not far-fetched, because I was personally looking for it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I found this when patrolling Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings. Misspellings in hatnotes are flagged by that error report. Generally, we favor linking to correct spellings over linking to misspellings. As this is a "correct" spelling for the Dan Quayle incident, that implies we should redirect Potatoe to that if it's a notable topic, or at the least, make Potatoe a disambiguation page. But as there are 17 deleted edits sitting under Potatoe, and a whopping 563 deleted edits at Potato (word), we should review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potato (word) before doing anything hasty here. Also wikt:potatoe. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The redirect Potatoe is absolutely fine, my problem is making some kind of note that some guy (yes, who happened to be the (then) current Vice President of the United States) misspelled the word is non-notable trivia. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potatoe. wbm1058 (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The Quayle incident was briefly in this article, but the mention didn't stick. Anyone remembering the "famous potatoe incident" but forgetting the name of the politician could still find it by using the Wikimedia search, though this does require the specific effort to override the default redirect to the correct spelling. Who Made the Potatoe Salad? and "Sweet Potatoe Pie" are other uses of the misspelling. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

A mention at Potato (disambiguation) § See also, as Potoooooooo (Pot-8-Os), the 18th-century racehorse, may not be totally unreasonable – though I'm not inclined to add such a thing as this myself. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that that it's trivia and unnecessary. If one searches for politician couldn't spell potato on Google, the top result is a link to Dan Quayle, its section heading 'Potatoe', and the first sentence ('On June 15, 1992, Quayle altered 12-year-old student William Figueroa's correct spelling of "potato" to "potatoe" at the Muñoz Rivera Elementary School spelling bee in Trenton, New Jersey'.). Searches for 'celebrity' or 'guy' 'can't spell potato' also have the Quayle article in the top three results. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Side note, could this incident be another entry for WP:LAME? ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 11:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Bold scientific name consistency

@General Ization: @Smartse: Why are some people set on a bold scientific name for this article when it is not done at others like tomato, eggplant, cuke? I don't particularly care if it goes this way, but then it has to be done for the others... Bod (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Sprouting and toxins

"If potatoes develop green areas or start to sprout, these areas should be trimmed before using.[citation needed] Trimming or peeling green areas are inadequate to remove copresent toxins, and such potatoes are no longer suitable as animal food.[60][61]"

To me, this is confusing. Do you trim it, or do you discard it? Is it suitable for human consumption but not animal (and if so, why)?

Dianaramadani (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It looks like this has been partly fixed. It seems like the first part was folk knowledge and the 2nd one had sources. I will try to clarify this more. Bod (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Number of Potato Varieties

Just passing by - I noticed the intro says there are "over 1,000" varieties, the Genetics section says 5,000, and the Varieties section says 4,000. Does someone want to reconcile these sources? 108.171.131.186 (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2019

There are more than 200 varieties of potatoes sold throughout the United States. Each of these varieties fit into one of seven types of potatoes i.e. russet, red, white, yellow, blue/purple, fingerling and petite.

In 1589, Sir Walter Raleigh introduced potatoes in Ireland on the 40,000 acres of land near Cork. It was nearly four decades after that when potatoes got popular in Europe.

It was found that potaoes are one of the easiest to grow rather than any of the other staple crops.This fact was supported that potatoes contain essential vitamins and they could be provided to nearly 10 people for each acre of land cultivated.

www.potatogoodness.com/potato-types/ www.potatogoodness.com/potato-fun-facts-history/ Krutika Samnani (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 09:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2020

In the source code, there is a line: == External links ==. Under the line, there is this line:

When using the textbook link on the page. It sends me to https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Coobook:Potato, which Wikipedia reports does not exist.

In the line aforementioned above, "Coobook" should be "Cookbook". The link should then be https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook:Potato, which is a real page.

Thanks! 71.171.117.33 (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. Now fixed (hopefully. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   01:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Sweet potatoes Calories are wrong

More over there is no correlation from Kcal print value and Kjoule print value (this data is correct)

Source:

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/168482/nutrients https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_potato — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.241.168.33 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2020

The first line of this article states potatoes are a root vegetable, but potatoes are not root vegetables because the potato itself is NOT the root. Potatoes grow roots. Potatoes are tubers. 86.154.232.198 (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You're correct in that potatoes are not roots, but as the root vegetable article explains, they are just underground plant organs rather than any specific botanical meaning. It's similar to the "are tomatoes a fruit or vegetable?" debate. Tuber doesn't have a specific botanical meaning either - just a storage organ and they can be stems or roots. Sweet potatoes are tubers and also roots. SmartSE (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

"Super tuber" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Super tuber. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Super tuber until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

"Malingsu" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Malingsu. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Malingsu until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Vitamin A ??????

Why does the table of nutritional info say these foods contain Vitamin A? Vegetables do not provide Vitamin A, with out question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flumstead (talk • contribs) 10:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Potatoes provide a small amount of Vitamin A from the metabolism of carotenes, especially from the potato skin. Many vegetables do indeed provide significant Vitamin A amounts, (cf Carrots) through the high carotene concentrations in their flesh. It may be true to say they don't contain vitamin A, simply the precursor compounds.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

"Pomme Terre" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pomme Terre. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 19#Pomme Terre until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Staple crop comparison table

Please see Template_talk:Comparison_of_major_staple_foods#Fresh/dry_comparisons regarding a proposed change to the template transcluded in this article. SmartSE (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Creamers / baby / new

I've made some changes to the text about creamer potatoes but I'm not sure that it is correct that creamers and new potatoes are synonymous. This company has a page detailing that their creamer potatoes are not "baby" potatoes by which they mean immature potatoes. As this ref from the UK discusses, there used to be confusion here about what counted as a "new" potato and now this only describes immature ones, which is what the text currently says creamers are. In the UK, we'd call those creamers "baby" potatoes (i.e. just small) or salad potatoes. Can anyone in the US shed any light on the terminology used? Is "creamer" synonymous with "new" in the way it used to be in the UK? i.e. it can apply to any small potato and is "baby" used only to describe immature potatoes? SmartSE (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Synonyms

Can anyone do something about the extremely long list of synonyms so it doesn't appear in the mobile phone version (if such a list is even necessary), causing a massive amount of scrolling? I haven't done enough edits to make changes to semi-protected pages. If the main sections other than the introduction are hidden by default, shouldn't this one be as well, and why isn't there an option to hide/show it?Stravinskian (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the list is a bit excessive, taking up 15 % of the current bytes, particularly if it causes issues on mobile versions (I haven't checked). There is probably enough material to create a separate article on Taxonomy of potato species to explain the history of it, but in the meantime, moving this to a separate List of Solanum tuberosum synonyms would seem most elegant. @Abductive: As the editor who added the list, what do you think? SmartSE (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

No, first we should find out why the Collapsible list template doesn't collapse on mobile, and see if it can be fixed Wikipedia-wide. Failing that, it may be best to replace the list with a link—or a footnote to a link—to the source, http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:821337-1#synonyms and remove the list entirely. Another possibility is splitting the article, but not just "List of Solanum tuberosum synonyms". Many plants, for example, Banana, Chili pepper, Cooked rice, have made a split between the culinary and the botanical. Abductive (reasoning) 16:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Europe or America

Aren't fried potatoes from belgium, because they are in the American section and if i remember well enough, Belgium is in Europe. Or are we clasifing it by popular culture? A bored editor (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Please add the Calorie content.

There is no mention of the amount of calories in a potato. There are all types of info here, and that one most important number is left out. Why? 73.6.96.168 (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

In the nutrition section: 77 calories per 100 gram (3.5 oz.) serving. Has been in the article for years. Zefr (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, i see that now. It is VERY easy to miss there in the text. I think it should be added to the table. See the corn article for a good example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize#Nutritional_value 73.6.96.168 (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Move list

How do I move list? BirdgoesWue (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Population Boom

Should the sources, 53 & 7 be changed and/or deleted, since they are not empirical yet, make big claims about "population boom" as the sole cause, being the potato?Seithx (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC) 8 PM, 22.11.2021

Survey

• Comment (Summoned by bot) – Your discussion below was run-in with your Rfc statement and couldn't be told apart. I added a paragraph break, and subsections "Survey" and "Discussion" so they could be told apart. Mathglot (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – Additionally, footnote numbers can and will change if someone adds a reference to the article after the Rfc is started, so make sure everyone knows which citations you are talking about. By "the sources, 53 & 7", presumably you mean, Note 7 (Francis, 2005) and Note 53 (Nunn, 2011) from revision 1055983119 of 00:52, 19 November 2021; is that correct? Mathglot (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – Can you rephrase your Rfc question? I am having trouble understanding what it is you would like editors' opinions on. Mathglot (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC
• Comment – First of all, thanks for taking the time to answer. Secondly, since I was in on an going battle, blaming me for vandalism, I had to summon the rest of the editors to stop this. My issue is that the paragraph explains the European population boom as being solely reliant on Potatos. When you go to the source, and check my quotes, it just does not stand and smells a bit like a "personal opinion" (which I myself was blamed for having, despite citing the source used to claim) and biased. I think this paragraph: "According to conservative estimates, the introduction of the potato was responsible for a quarter of the growth in Old World population and urbanization between 1700 and 1900.[53] In the Altiplano, potatoes provided the principal energy source for the Inca civilization, its predecessors, and its Spanish successor. Following the Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire, the Spanish introduced the potato to Europe in the second half of the 16th century, part of the Columbian exchange. The staple was subsequently conveyed by European (possibly including Russian) mariners to territories and ports throughout the world, especially their colonies.[54] The potato was slow to be adopted by European and colonial farmers, but after 1750 it became an important food staple and field crop[54] and played a major role in the European 19th century population boom"
• Comment – Regarding your remark about footnote numbers, you are correct. If you can assist me in adding the footnotes properly, I will learn next time when adding these in. Also, how can we move this subject forward and get more editors involved to see if it has any merit? Thanks. Seithx (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This whole paragraph, especially the bolded part of the quote. Just out of place and is based on a sole, anecdotal source. I have bolded and given a more detailed response in the "discussion" part. All in all, in my opinion, the above paragraph, needs to be rephrased to the given the level of "empirical assertiveness" the source has for claiming this. Or just use another source, or remove it completely. Do you agree and/or see the issue I am having?

Discussion

I quote why my discussion was deleted: "I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages (including user talk pages) such as Talk:Potato are for discussion related to improving (a) an encyclopedia article in specific ways based on reliable sources or (b) project policies and guidelines. (Which is exactly what I did... was I not...?) They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. (Which is exactly what I DID NOT DO, base on my own feelings....) If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages (IF ONE HAS AN ISSUE WITH A CONTENT HE MUST ASK THERE?!?!)."

I again, will put what I wrote for easy reference.... you tell me if these are my own thoughts and feelings, and that I am being subjective here....

"Hi,

There's a source that seems lacking, or at all, even empirical. They are purely anecdotal.

Here's the excerpt I am referring to, from the Potato Article on Wikipedia:

"According to conservative estimates, the introduction of the potato was responsible for a quarter of the growth in Old World population and urbanization between 1700 and 1900.[53] In the Altiplano, potatoes provided the principal energy source for the Inca civilization, its predecessors, and its Spanish successor. Following the Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire, the Spanish introduced the potato to Europe in the second half of the 16th century, part of the Columbian exchange. The staple was subsequently conveyed by European (possibly including Russian) mariners to territories and ports throughout the world, especially their colonies.[54] The potato was slow to be adopted by European and colonial farmers, but after 1750 it became an important food staple and field crop[54] and played a major role in the European 19th century population boom"

You go to source 53 and you start reading a bunch of journey diaries from various authors, while historically speaking, it's a good peek to factors that MAY HAVE contributed to population growth, but a "boom" is purely subjective and is not based on nothing but subjective understanding.

Given the tools back then, it is a joke to present this today as "potato was responsible for a quarter of the growth in Old World Population" - What is this based on? Where is the data?

See below, again, from source 53 - "To the best of our knowledge, the only existing empirical study (and so, this source, #53, is not empirical???) attempting to estimate the causal (meaning, this source presents a correlation ONLY, not a casual effect) effect of potatoes is a study by Joel Mokyr [1981], in which he examines the relationship between potato adoption and population growth across Irish counties in 1845. He addresses endogeneity issues by estimating a system of two equations using 2SLS, instrumenting for potato cultivation with per capita income (intended to capture the demand for potatoes), the capital to labor ratio (intended to capture the supply of manure), the standard deviation of altitude, and the proportion of land classified as “improvable” for tillage but not currently under cultivation (both of which are intended to capture geographic features that increased potato adoption). Mokyr finds that potato cultivation resulted in a statistically significant increase in population growth (correlation, not causation...). He finds no evidence of the reverse causal relationship – that the potato was adopted in response to rapid population growth.4"

From the only study mentioned above that tried to measure the effect of potatos, by Joel Mokyr: "The third interpretation of the results is that they do reflect, at least approximately, the dynamism of the Irish economy in the century before the famine. All other things equal, the potato allowed the Irish to marry younger and have more children and, as a result, the potato caused higher labour/land ratios in rural areas. The effect of potatoes is clear-cut, although not particularly large. For instance, a vast increase in potato acreage from the actual 16per cent to a hypothetical 26per cent of cultivated land would reduce the average age at marriage by about eight months, and raise the birth and natural growth rate by about seven per thousand. The potato clearly was a factor, if by no means the only one, in determining the demographic history of Ireland before the famine. There is no evidence, however, that the potato was a necessary condition for Irish population growth before the famine. As Cullen reminds us, the acceleration of population growth and rising propensities to marry were taking place in many other regions in Western Europe at this time. Conversely, the Boserup model does not maintain that all agricultural progress had to be triggered S1 Bourke has estimated that 33 % of the normal pre-Famine crop was consumed by animals, and another 7 % was exported or wasted. Less than half (47 %) was actually consumed by humans. See P. M. Austin Bourke, "The Use of the Potato Crop in Pre-Famine Ireland", Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland, Vol. XXI, Part IV, pp, 72-96. 27 by population pressure. The picture that emerges is that the potato was such an improvement over earlier forms of tillage that its widespread cultivation would have occurred even in the absence of population growth. as The undeniable fact that large amounts of potatoes were already cultivated by the 1740s-before the resurgence of Irish population growth had fully started-supports this view. 33 Population growth would probably have occurred even in the absence of potatoes although, as our results suggest, at a somewhat slower rate. Whether, in the absence of potatoes, population could have reached the level of 8·3million people in the mid-1840s is hard to say. The difficulty with the argument that potatoes removed the Malthusian constraints on population growth is that it has never been demonstrated that prior to the widespread consumption of potatoes Ireland had reached a population equilibrium.s!"

Anyways, we can do this all day. The study is lacking and the except needs to be rephrased and be given better sources, if we want to claim potato is the sole factor or what the level of it's contribution to population growth, especially using these sources. It just doesn't add up." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seithx (talk • contribs) 18:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Potato

"Following millennia of selective breeding, there are now over 5,000 different types of potatoes.[6]"

The word "millenia" is a incorrect exaggeration. Someone please correct that . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.233.55.2 (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Considering as how the potato was domesticated thousands of years ago by ancient Andean cultures, it's neither an exaggeration, nor incorrect.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2022

179.6.199.103 (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

La papa es oriunda de Perú, hasta se ha encontrado evidencia cientifica de sus orígenes en este pais, no de Chile como indica wikipedia. En el año 2006 Chile quiso inscribir como patrimonio más de 286 variadades de papas pero la cancillería de Perú respondió contundentemente en base a estudios científicos.

 Not done Wikipedia articles summarize what published reliable sources say. You need to furnish a published reliable source that says potato cultivation began in Chile as opposed to Peru/Bolivia. Cullen328 (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The article states "The potato was first domesticated in the region of modern-day southern Peru and northwestern Bolivia[5] by pre-Columbian farmers, around Lake Titicaca.[6] It has since spread around the world and become a staple crop in many countries.

The earliest archaeologically verified potato tuber remains have been found at the coastal site of Ancon (central Peru), dating to 2500 BC.[56][57] The most widely cultivated variety, Solanum tuberosum tuberosum, is indigenous to the Chiloé Archipelago, and has been cultivated by the local indigenous people since before the Spanish conquest.[27][58]"

Translation of request, for those watching at home, courtesy of google: The potato is native to Peru, even scientific evidence of its origins has been found in this country, not in Chile as indicated by wikipedia. In 2006, Chile wanted to register more than 286 varieties of potatoes as heritage, but the Peruvian Foreign Ministry responded forcefully based on scientific studies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

American Cancer Society is good medical source

@user:bon courage has reverted my edit and seems to be disputing the source and my representation of it. The main medical source is the American Cancer Society, which I believe satisfies WP:MEDRS. The top of the article has the classification of Acrylamide by other national and intl organisations, so it is representing the scientific consensus that Acrylamide is probably carcinogenic, as I stated in my edit. I'm not sure what I'm misrepresenting. The other sources, while not medical, also reach the same conclusion and added details. Therefor I am re-adding my edit. Brian Shaposky (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

You have already been warned for edit warring. Yes, the ACS is a good WP:MEDRS. And WP:V is a core policy. Bon courage (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The scientific consensus in the beginning of the article that acrylamide is "probably carcenogenic to humans" from the IARC for example. Also, you removed the part that cooking potatoes at high temps increases the amount of acrymalide. The quote you use from the source is about "dietary acrylamide", but acrylamide from burning foods is not part of a normal diet. Brian Shaposky (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is. If you want to introduce stuff about cooking temperature effects that could be okay; putting it just into the lede is not. Bon courage (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

What makes you believe acrylamide from burnt food is included in the umbrella term "dietary acrylamide"? Brian Shaposky (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The words in the source. If it's eaten, it's dietary; if it's not eaten it doesn't have health effects. Anyway, I have added a new source to quell any doubt. From the sources it seems the acrylamide-causes-cancer idea is a debunked health scare of yesteryear. Bon courage (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2022

I suggest removing the words "and a fruit" from the first sentence of the article, changing "a root vegetable and a fruit native to the Americas" to "a root vegetable native to the Americas". Even if the potato plant does produce fruits, its fruits are not used in cuisine and probably not safely edible; the tubers are not fruits; and these words were added by a user whose edits to other articles seem to consist mostly of vandalism. 2607:FEA8:12A2:4300:0:0:0:F9AC (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that - I have removed it. It was added by a vandal just over a month ago [2]. SmartSE (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The list

What is up with the absurdly long list of different scientific names? At least make it collapsable. 98.128.166.100 (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@98.128.166.100 agreed, the layout of this page is a complete mess, some months ago I tried to move the taxonomy section to a lower part of the article but this edit was immediately reverted, on mobile this article's readability is severely impacted Adhiyana (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Number of varieties

Section 2.3, Genetics, begins There are about 5,000 potato varieties worldwide, whereas 2.4, Varieties, a mere four paragraphs later, asserts There are close to 4,000 varieties of potatoes; a difference of 1,000 is fairly substantial. Neither statement seems to be referenced, so i can't determine which is correct. Anyone have any idea which is? Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 19:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

After a tad bit of research I believe the 5,000 was a typo and was meant to be 4,000. Woolmadj (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

the table shows 100g of potato has almost half a day's worth of recommended potassium, but the text seems to claim that is not a significant amount

the table shows 100g of potato has almost half a day's worth of recommended potassium, but the text seems to claim that is not a significant amount 68.235.169.222 (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Calling them irish potatoes in america

Hi,

The etymology ends with potatoes sometimes being called “Irish or white potatoes in America to distinguish them from sweet potatoes.” Has anyone ever actually heard an American call a potato an irish or white potato? Maybe that detail should be omitted.

Lit, ~~ Blob400 (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

That sentence cites the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) as its source. Unless you can verify that the information does not appear at that source, it will remain. The content of Wikipedia is not based on the experiences of our editors, but on the information published by cited sources. General Ization ^Talk 06:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with the source, but is it really appropriate for our article to mention what a fraction of less than 5% of the world's population sometimes incorrectly call potatoes. It looks like a bit of US-centrism to me. Something can be well sourced, but insignificant and trivial. HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Without having done any significant analysis, I can find more than 800k online references to "irish potato" -famine and 500k references to "white potato". I don't think either term is derogatory or offensive as applied to potatoes, so I don't see any need to remove the terms from our article, or to invest more time in debate about them. The single sentence, appropriately in the Etymology section, is hardly undue. General Ization ^Talk 07:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not just in the USA that the term is used. See e.g. [3] and [4] from Rwanda, [5] from Kenya and [6] from Nigeria. SmartSE (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@General Ization you seem to be mistaking the term "Irish potato famine" for "Irish-potato famine". The famine is not named after the "Irish potato", it was a famine involving the potato which occurred in Ireland. This is not evidence of the use of "Irish potato" as a term. Adhiyana (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It is probably an old saying, or only in certain art of america as I have never heard them be called Irish potatoes we just call them plain potatoes, regular potatoes, or just potatoes. Woolmadj (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Does anybody know if this could be a regional dialect? I've lived on the west coast of the US most of my life and never heard "Irish potato" used. NoseSniffer (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Adhiyana: Perform the same Google searches that I did and you'll find plenty of evidence for the use of "Irish potato" as a common term (neither a derogatory nor offensive one). Also, university extension services are generally reliable sources for such things; see https://plants.ces.ncsu.edu/plants/solanum-tuberosum/, for example. No one was claiming that the famine in Ireland was named for the potato; the question was whether Americans actually use the term to refer to Solanum tuberosum. They do. General Ization ^Talk 02:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Adhiyana: By the way, you apparently didn't realize that the Google search term "irish potato" -famine means to show hits on "Irish potato" that don't include the word "famine", since I wasn't interested in articles that referred to the famine in Ireland. General Ization ^Talk 02:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@General Izationyes that is correct, I did not know this search method Adhiyana (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2023

I wanted to add that a new potato species has been found in the northern half of Ireland. AidenPlayz835 (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

semi protected edit request: smashed potatoes

There's nothing New England about a smashed potato (source, a proud New Englander would be happy to claim credit were it at all possible) so that either needs a cite or just take those couple of words out and leave the smashed potato in. You can google it, it ain't. 2603:8001:D3F0:87E0:0:0:0:10D0 (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

For a faster response, add the template for the request,

on that note

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Geardona (talk to me?) 17:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Comparison to other staple foods and nutritional content

I think the part about nutritional content in this article could be clearer. Many articles about food has a simple table of the sort "Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)" which is really good when trying to do a quick approximate lookup.

Having a huge table comparing dry weight to other staple foods seems a bit out of place in an article that's primarily about potatoes. To me that table fits much better in the article about staple food Staple food#Comparison of 10 staple foods where it also exists, rather than being in lots of individual articles for each staple food. To me, the article about Cassava for instance is much easier to use for looking up nutrition while still offering a link to the staple food comparison. Bricksprovidecoal (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Bricksprovidecoal - Agree about removing the large nutrition table. Use the cassava nutrition section and table format as an example, and WP:FIXIT. Here are the USDA nutrition data for a raw potato. Watching for your edit. Zefr (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Without commenting of the desirability of the huge table, it may be suspect. I have looked at just one value, raw sweet potato beta-carotene. Table says 36996μg now; USDA says 8510μg. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Pol098: Yes and 77.3 % water. (8510/22.7) x 100 = 37488. I converted everything to dry weight after first proposing it nine years ago. It's impossible to fairly compare potatoes (and sweet potatoes) with cereals if you do not account for the vastly different water contents. SmartSE (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, makes perfect sense. I noticed the "raw sweet potato" (G) footnote, but the enormous beta-carotene number caught my eye eye and I missed the (blatantly obvious) "dry weight". Maybe I was just a bit stupid, or maybe a comment for the table would be justified? "Many published tables show weight including water content, which is much lower", Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

What would editors think of collapsing the section and table for comparison to other staple foods and just having a specific section on nutrition for both raw and boiled potatoes (FoodData Central has several choices for cooked)? It seems this is the clearer presentation for the common user, as opposed to the comparison table which unfocuses attention on potato nutrition. I would be happy to compose this revision and have the USDA table for cooked potato as the main data presentation. Zefr (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Zefr: Sounds reasonable to me. I doubt that there is much difference between raw and cooked, but if there is any data on different ways of cooking them, e.g. fries vs. boiled, that would be good to include. More generally, it would be good to mention how some nutrients vary widely between varieties. This source is probably too primary but shows what I mean, but there is hopefully a better source out there. SmartSE (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

With this edit, I used FoodData Central for nutrient data of boiled potatoes with skin, assuming this is the most common cooking method. Data are also available for boiled from frozen, and microwaved with/without skin. Apologies - there are no USDA data for raw potato nutrient contents - an unlikely preparation for eating. There are no nutrient data for French fries or different potato varieties. Open into how we make this better. Zefr (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks good but on my screen at least, it does result in a lot of white space. Something else worth including is patatin which isn't even mentioned yet and include how potatoes are a complete protein source (i.e. containing all the essential amino acids) per [7]. The GI info is also poorly sourced (primary) and simplistic, something like this would be a better source. Some mention of the role of preventing scurvy during the Irish famine and WW2 may also be worthy of mention. SmartSE (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The comparison table is clumsy and unnecessary, presenting much more information than the common user would want. It's causing the white space in the presence of the potato nutrition table. I recommend deleting it and the introductory content with it.

On your other suggestions, I'll leave those for now for other editors to include. Zefr (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The comparison table is included in most of the other crop articles, but I agree it is a lot of information and {{see also}} link would be an alternative way to show it. Looking at this it states Note that there are two sets of data for raw (uncooked potatoes) - USDA and FDA. The USDA data are specific to the potato type analyzed, while the FDA data represent a “market-basket” analytic approach, utilizing a weighted average of the nutrients found in potato varieties available to US consumers. Because these values can vary so widely, it would be better to use the FDA data but we also need to add the caveat that the values are for typical US potatoes. This seems to be an up to date version although oddly the values are out of date according to this source. The downside of that data is some values are only as %DV so need to be recalculated to give grams. This may be a better source though it's USDA but based off 8 samples. It's raw and without skin, but raw is probably better to use since cooking method can affect nutrient levels, particularly vitamin C e.g.. Another slight tangent, is that we should include some discussion of nutrition of the skin as it's a common misconception that it contains significant amounts of nutrients this from Potatoes USA and this from growingproduce.com discuss that but neither are great sources. Apologies if I'm overthinking this all! SmartSE (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh and the text should also clarify that nearly all of the carbs are starch. SmartSE (talk) 08:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

1) I'll move the comparison table to See also. 2) as people do not eat raw potatoes, I assumed this is why the USDA-FoodData Central (FDC) site no longer has nutrient data for raw (at one time, it did). This also justifies use of the nutrition table for cooked potatoes as representative of what people consume. Most or all (?) of our plant-food articles with nutrition sections use the USDA-FDC tables, where analyses have been done. 3) As we don't have reliable nutrition data for non-American potatoes, I think we have to stay with this and not be too concerned with slight geographic or cultivar variation. 4) likewise, for nutrients in skin specifically, there are no reliable sources other than the USDA-FDC tables where skin was included - should we have a separate nutrition table for this? I didn't think it was justified. 5) I've looked through PubMed, but don't see better sources to discuss potato starch more than we say in the paragraph on GI. Zefr (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Add Swedish to the earth-apple part

In some variants of Swedish, jordäpple (jordappel, jolappel) is or has been used for potatoes, so "at least 7" can be changed to "at least 8". Source: https://svenska.se/saob/?sok=jord%C3%A4pple#U_J1_193122 I'm guessing Norwegian could also be added to that list, but I don't have a source for that. 84.216.33.26 (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. You can add this yourself. Invasive Spices (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

wikt:no:jordeple — Invasive Spices (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

How? I don't have an account and this page is semi-protected. 84.216.33.26 (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see that. I've added {{Edit semi-protected}} for you. Invasive Spices (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. This is English Language Wikipedia. Why do we even have that paragraph on the name in SOME other languages? HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• I agree. I don't like these – vandalism magnets, nationalistic edit war magnets, usually lacking refs. Nonetheless if we have some, we can have Swedish & Norwegian. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2023

Add link to archival YouTube video from Ontario government illustrating potato growing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNmHrJ-9Wcc&t=63s JoelDickau (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@JoelDickau: Not done That does not meet the requirements for including external links. SmartSE (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you please clarify? I contend this meets the second requirement of what can normally linked, in that it is a stable link to a piece of archival media relevant to the entry's subject. JoelDickau (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@JoelDickau: There are thousands of videos about potato farming on youtube and tens of thousands more related to potatoes. Wikipedia is not a collection of links though and I see nothing particularly special about this video. I contend this meets the second requirement The second part of WP:ELYES refers to An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work which is not at all relevant to this situation. SmartSE (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

History of pronunciation

The modern day pronunciation of /pəˈteɪtoʊ/ ("pə-TAY-toh") appears to consistent throughout the English-speaking world (the major nations within it anyway) but the alternative broad "A" pronunciation /pəˈtɑːtoʊ/ ("pə-TAH-toh") familiarised in popular culture by the song Let's Call the Whole Thing Off potentially raises questions over "who says 'potahto'". I have heard the broad "A" "potahto" pronunciation in some episodes of the animated show Back to the Future (TV series) in scenes set in the United States in the 19th century or earlier suggesting the word could have been pronounced that way back then also considering Let's Call the Whole Thing Off was written in 1937. According to the this article the word "potato" is derived from the Spanish "patata" which is pronounced with a broad "A" so the English word could have been pronounced this way before transitioning to the long "A" pronunciation familiar today though it could have been gradual considering there is a generational divide for as long as language evolves. On the relevance to this article, I think there should be a section explaining this if it is true considering the potential for questions over this especially of there is still a difference between accents although I doubt there are any major formal differences like with tomato. Tk420 (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I see more differences in pronouncing the final "o" than the "a" HiLo48 (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Purely anecdotal, but i have always assumed that Ira Gershwin was merely making a small joke (the lack of difference in pronunciation) for the sake of a rhyme. I have never seen anything other than the song with that difference in the "-a-" sound. Unless there is something in an RS referencing different pronunciations, i suggest we ignore it. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I found an article about this on Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/potayto,_potahto) which states "Supposedly uses the American English and British English pronunciations of the word potato, by analogy of tomato (see tomayto, tomahto). Unlike tomato, only the former pronunciation is used in either American nor British English". Besides, I found a discussion about this on Talk:Let's Call the Whole Thing Off#PotAHto in case anyone is interested. Tk420 (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I have heard it pronounced "pə-TAY-tə" or "tater" but these are colloquialisms when "pə-TAY-toh" appears to be the formal pronunciation more or less throughout the English-speaking world. This could however be noted if a section on pronunciation is included. Tk420 (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced / suspect claims in the Culinary section

−

Unlike many foods, potatoes can also be easily cooked in a [[microwave oven]] and still retain nearly all of their nutritional value, provided they are covered in ventilated [[plastic wrap]] to prevent moisture from escaping; this method produces a meal very similar to a steamed potato, while retaining the appearance of a conventionally baked potato.

+

Potatoes can also be cooked in a [[microwave oven]] to produce a meal very similar to a steamed potato, while retaining the appearance of a conventionally baked potato.

IMO there is a lot wrong with this as-is, and these claims shouldn't be included in a section where the only source is the wikibooks potato cookbook. First of all, the "unlike many foods" implies either that there are many foods that lose nutritional value when microwaved or that many foods cannot be easily cooked in microwaves. While the latter interpretation could be argued owing to the vagueness of the 'many', it's at least misleading, and the former interpretation seems to be plainly false (there are many sources for this eg https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7047080/).

The claim that they must be wrapped in ventilated plastic wrap in order to retain nutrients is also highly suspect and unsourced, and I don't see any reason why it should be the case. Water lost as vapor isn't likely to contain significant amounts of water-soluble nutrients so whether or not moisture is retained during cooking should be immaterial from a nutritional perspective.

I could see the argument for leaving the reference to plastic wrap in sans the nutritional claims since it is a common method of microwaving potatoes, but considering it's only one of a variety of methods that produce relatively similar results (like microwaving unwrapped or wrapped in a damp paper towel) I'd suggest it be removed entirely. Emnmmmmma (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

List of cultivars?

Does this article need such a long list of taxonomic names for potato varieties in the Biology subsection? It seems unnecessarily long to me, and odd to have to scroll so far to get past it in the middle of the article. Kyesel (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)