Talk:Anona

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Peru Portal
This article is supported by the Peru WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Peru-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Peru To-do:

The article is just being reverted without the collection of information being moved. It is crude vandalism. It lacks class. -- carol (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  • "Anona," as a misspelling in English or Spanish term, may not be the title of an article on the English-language Wikipedia, although it may be a redirect to the correct Latin genus name, Annona. Badagnani (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
carol@bread:$ dict anona
1 definition found

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:

:Anona \A*no"na\, n. [NL. Cf. {Ananas}.] (Bot.)
     A genus of tropical or subtropical plants of the natural
     order {Anonace[ae]}, including the soursop.
     [1913 Webster]

-- carol (talk) 06:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As an antiquated misspelling from 1913 Webster of the actual spelling of the genus, Annona, it's proper to have "Anona" redirect to "Annona." Badagnani (talk) 07:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You want to merge species with names that were assigned in the 1600s with articles that reference an encyclopedia from 1911 and you have a problem with a definition from a 1913 dictionary that is free and available for everyone? This discussion belongs at wiki plant project. The fruits will not change, the families will -- and that is the extremely current situation; as in waiting for the papers to be sold before they can be available for free. The way the science is going is different from the foods that we eat and what we call them. The common phrase custard-apple is used to describe the whole family Annonaceae and until you can hack that web site or convince the plant scientists to change it, that is the fact. I have worked in a biological research facility and also in a grocery store. The information needed for both places is different and equally interesting.
How about doing something which is actually useful and productive and find the PLU numbers for these fruits? Also, I am sorry that no one loves you enough to block you for self-serving and aggressive reversion of good content. Pity. -- carol (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
7 of 1300 species called custard apple are cultivated for their fruits and you want those articles to have the title and the location on the wiki which is a fuzzy common name; a couple of these common names which are shared among them? Yet, at the same while, you go against the wishes of TheConsensus who wants the pages to have the scientific name yet as a user has adopted the name of the entity which is not to be argued with. Unless you are doing something useful, please recap your logic for me. And keep it simple. -- carol (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
A. reticulata is the actual custard apple; the others are called so inaccurately or informally, and can be served by a disambiguation page. WP practice is to use common names when they are widely known, and A. reticulata has historically been called "custard apple." However, this discussion page is about improving the "Anona" page. As such, since "Anona" is not an English word nor a Latin genus name, it should redirect to Annona, the actual genus name. Badagnani (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
They are the family of custard apples. There are 1300 custard apples -- not just one. The fruit and the species are almost separate subjects. I think that you imagine that the people who read these articles are intellectually inept and it is an imaginary audience that everyone writes for be it fiction, fantasy or factual content. My "imaginary audience" perhaps reflects the real people who used to be in my life -- minds dulled by the boob toob but very easy to engage. I had a bad experience while trying to write documentation for a species -- the species lived on a salty seashore and on hills along with a few other species, one which was a species of the genus Ruta; that genus page had been locked because there was an edit war between the plant people and the homeopaths. That is an interesting problem because the homeopaths actually named their remedy after a genus. I was looking for a different species than the one the homeopaths use -- an interesting species because of reason research that has been made about communities of plants. The information stopped there -- with an edit war between the homeopaths and the plant people and here is the key to the problem; it is two separate subjects that fall under two different projects and the articles should be treated that way. I personally find the parenthesis tradition here to be kind of silly but the information that was being warred over at Ruta should have been split into two different articles Ruta a species and itself just something that grows in some places and under some conditions and Ruta (homeopathy) a homeopathic remedy. So if "widely known" is to be translated by this into "knowledge stops" then explain that to science and human brains who want more and need work regardless of what the name of a fruit that a species produces is.
The software can handle this, the wiki people are already in the separate groups (food and plants) the information is different that is useful for the two umbrella subjects and there were two consensus already, one with a common name that defies your logic and another who is a group of people who create articles at wiki plant project. One person wants a discussion and is reverting. One person should perhaps go play with their software until they figure it out.
Meanwhile, I am improving the article for Anona because there was suggestion that it is really long articles that you want. This one is as long as a piece of toilet paper already and is growing. I would prefer that it be split into the individual fruit articles. I do not want to discuss this with anyone who uses some facts sometimes and neurotically avoids others. I am going to suggest that the people that such a person imagines are reading these articles are better found at simple.wikipedia and even then -- by the time they are seven or eight years old, will start to have some of the same problems with your logic that I am (and that you are if you take a few minutes to review it). Question: do you think that not nesting your demands is a sign of dominance? It is like not so funny comedy to me. When dictionary.com sends me a check enough to cover the things that I apparently donated for such venue as this, I will probably still want the fruit and the species to be separated here because that is what the people who are actually doing the writing (and in that way knowing what they are talking about) want. And that is also what the software can handle (even if one person can't) and it is also kind of beautiful for the way they are learning about how plants work on this earth. The science of botany is not dead and I don't think that you can kill it here or should continue your attempts to kill it. -- carol (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)