Talk:Custard-apple

}

Vietnam?

This is grown in Vietnam as well, isn't it? Badagnani 06:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

>> Yes, it grows all over southern Asia. The custard apples grown in the Taitung area of Taiwan are particlarly fine Atanovic 12:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Feral

Feral is used to refer to feral populations. If the sole intention is to refer to cultivated plants then the Deccan Plateau does not bear special mention. This is a very common horticultural crop in tropical and subtropical regions worldwide. If the plant is not feral in India then we can rmeove all mention of India.

In response to another question, this plant is not native to the Maldives and so does not belong in that category. See Flora of Maldives talk for more information on why we cna not include cultivated species.Ethel Aardvark

Wrong Pictures

The pictures being used at present are not of custard apples but of sugar apples. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 14:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be corrected. There are some photos of custard apples at Flickr and other places. Badagnani (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Undo split

Please undo the page split, discuss, then if there's consensus, split. But not before. Badagnani (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please undo the page split, discuss, then if there's consensus, split. But not before. Badagnani (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

At first, we did not like the idea of the split, but after seeing the cited references and the confusion that exists long before wikipedia did regarding these fruits those species and the names, we rather like the idea of a split. What about making an article for all of the fruits? We have been thinking that an article named Anon that listed all of these species fruits and what they should mean would be very interesting and the least confusing of all the options. All of the annona common fruit names could redirect there to where the nutritional and insecticidal information exists and any reader could more easily determine which fruit and what nutrition. One day soon, all of the Paw-paw will probably be dna sampled and put into the Annona species -- it is just better this way. We spoke about it and we all agree. (Now we are going to think about making our user page so it will reflect how difficult to exist in an environment like this where everything we do is always considered to be the right thing....) -- TheConsensus (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You joined Wikipedia a few minutes ago and learned about all this so quickly? Badagnani (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A split between a single, discrete tree and the fruit it produces into two separate articles is something that, in this case, has no consensus and is unnecessary. Please undo the split. Badagnani (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you should cool it. If the name Custard-apple is to be a single entity and all, consider the name The Consensus and demonstrate how to work without going against it.... -- carol (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Annonaceae". Integrated Taxonomic Information System. 18 March. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help) -- TheConsensus (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=18095 Badagnani (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It says: "Annona reticulata L. -- custard apple" Badagnani (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You are reading from web pages that are called (or for) just Annona reticulata to the consensus who provided a web page from the same site that says that the whole family has that name on a web page that is clearly titled or about all of the Annonaceae? I have had friends who call me 'Spears' and I answer, but that doesn't mean that I speak for the others in my family, nor does it mean that it is always me who will answer. Can you find any examples in the brief history of wikipedia where one person fought the consensus and won? Probably there is a case where that happened. If you want me to agree that Custard apple is Annona reticulata because you say so, I would like for you to say that the consensus is the consensus because it owns that name and can quickly make a page that claims to be the consensus here -- especially since the logic is the same. -- carol (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The Plantain might be in the "banana family" but it's a Plantain. Badagnani (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A. reticulata

The standard common name for Custard apple is Annona reticulata. Please do not present three alternate names, two of which are non-standard, as equal in the lead. Badagnani (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't provide citations for that. You may please continue to quote 'The Consensus' and you may stop reverting the The Consensus edits when they have fully cited their references. And you can quote us on that. -- TheConsensus (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"The consensus" has asked that you provide citations to verify the information that you decreed here -- how much time do you need to do that? Perhaps you should take either a wikibreak (aggressive reverting and apparently going against the consensus) or take a break from making opinions until you can find citable facts.

It looks to me like you personally want people to use the official common names properly, not that they actually do. Looks can be deceiving though. -- carol (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/morton/custard_apple.html

http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=ANRE

Badagnani (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I provided pages clearly state that the common name Custard-apple was used for other species. Both of those web pages were written in a country that (with the exception of one state and one or two species) cannot grow them. And seriously, demonstrate how to work the way you want with a shared name without going against TheConsensus. Start there. It is the same thing and the consensus has spoken about this. -- carol (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Those pages should be provided, and considered, before such a page move. The existence of non-standard usages does not necessitate a page move, but can very well be addressed with a disambiguation page. Badagnani (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, excuse me, I made an assumption that you looked before reverting. What makes a common name, btw? The name that everyone uses or the name that one or two people want everyone to use? Officially, here on wikipedia, the consensus is now a user. There is no rule that there needs to be edits before the consensus can vote -- personally, I am somewhat impressed that TheConsensus has researched this stuff before saying what it wants here. Now, if you can explain to me how TheConsensus is not the consensus, it will be easier for me to understand how Custard-apple is only Annona reticulata[1] and not Annona cherimola[2] and also not Annona squamosa[3] all from this reversion. I wonder what the consensus will say (after a certain amount of time for you to explain how one is not the other) about wikipedians who revert changes in articles without reading them. -- carol (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Confusion about what Custard apples are in the English speaking world

• http://www.custardapple.com.au/info.php
• http://waynesword.palomar.edu/jackfr1.htm#cherimoya two different fruits are there as Cherimoya
• ["Annonaceae". Integrated Taxonomic Information System. 21 March. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)] ITIS says it is the name for 1300 species of tree, will they all be listed here?
• http://www.foodmuseum.com/sugarapple.html look at the name of the reference for this text (The Custard Apple (Sugar Apple))
• http://www.123exp-food.com/t/01024609165/ the 'language of nutrition' (written in English) claims "custard apple the fruit of any of several tropical American trees of the genus Annona having soft edible pulp."

My question is not if all 1300 species will be represented on this page (because I can read English) but when and how? Will each species have its own article or will they be here with subheadings? -- carol (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the pictures are that of wood apple (Bael), custard apples are what the 1st link shows. Can someone please verify and confirm? Thanks--GDibyendu (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was not to merge.--Tealwisp (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

---

• Merge from Annona reticulata. Common English name; illogical to have two separate articles on the very same species, as we do not have separate articles for Peach and Prunus persica. Badagnani (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Not the most useful example for comparison, as we should have separate articles for Peach and P. persica. Wanna try again? --Blechnic (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - There is no reason to have separate articles for Peach and Prunus persica, and there is no reason to have separate articles for Custard-apple and Annona reticulata. In each case, the terms refer to the same plant/fruit. Badagnani (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, there is a reason, the plants policy is that important agricultural and foodstuffs can have their own articles about the item as a food, and one about the plant under its scientific name. If you don't like the policy, change it, but don't say it doesn't exist. Read WP:Plants. --Blechnic (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with the merge proposal. Even if this plant is deemed "economically or culturally significant enough to merit" separate articles for the tree species and for its fruit as food, it would make sense to reorganize the articles to make the readers of one to be instantly aware of the existence of the other. The "main" tag is suitable for this. Vmenkov (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• OK, let's merge. Badagnani (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NC (flora). --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Annona reticulata is where the botanical explanations are, and besides, it is not the only custard-apple bearing tree. If anything, custard apple should be merged into Annona reticulata, but it is notable as a food. Again, see WP:NC (flora). Tealwisp (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's the only "custard-apple bearing tree" because it is the custard-apple. We don't have two articles for Peach and Prunus persica, and for a good reason. Badagnani (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has a piece in the lead regarding other uses of the term custard apple, which is the point I was driving at. Besides, WP:NC (flora) specifically states that there may be two articles: one for the fruit (a food) and one for the species (a thing of botanical interest). That's why there are two articles, and that's why we should have an article for prunus persica. Tealwisp (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

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