Talk:Giant pumpkin/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Comments
What you don't like my Random Capitization? :)
Nice work Organizing the Organization Links...
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.191.18.180 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Merge with pumpkin? (2005)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I do not think that this topic should be merged with pumpkin because the Atlantic Giant is a distinctly different variety than any normal pumpkin out there. The Atlantic Giant pumpkin deserves its own article because of its uniqueness and the heavy competition involved with growing these massive pumpkins.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.69.123 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Unit coversion
I put the metric equivalent for the largest pumpkin. Strange that this was overlooked by the original author – truly a pumpkin for Halloween :D
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.220.31 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
record weight
The world record weight for an A.G. pumpkin was incorect. The current world record is 1689 pounds.Juliancolton 14:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Awful sentence
"Because of the uncanny genetics of the material, there has been an aggressive and unimpeded increase in fruit weight per generation, and the stability of optimized genomic loci entails the minimal effort that is required to grow a large fruit using the variety; this nature has assured, time and time over, a result of elite fruit size by the mere effort of imbibing the seed and presenting it a modest location for growth."
Could someone decipher and re-express this? 68.107.83.19 (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Confusing
In spite of my {{confusing}} being reverted, this article is, well, confusing. There is very little discussion of the squash itself, but a massive and confusing text on the name and legality of it (!?), as well as an explanation of how their growers psychologically relate to it (?!?!), and a massive load of questionable external links. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
External links
I'm planning to trim the External links section down to a small number, under ten. There are too many - the Manual of Style suggests 10% of all text as a maximum for links. Under Wikipedia policy, large collections of external links are not allowed. Forums should not normally be listed.
Here is the full External links list before cutting.
Beechhouse (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2008 (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) 01:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this plant grown only for size and not for consumption. I've never heard of anyone using these things to eat, but I suppose there must be some people out there who do. Voodoowitchdr (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Food and drink project
I'm not quite sure that this article belongs in that project. Often these pumpkin plants are treated with chemicals and fertilizers that may make the fruit undesirable to eat. Paradoxsociety (review) 19:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Upon reconsideration, I suppose that due to the Atlantic Giant's relationship with the common pumpkin, the tag may be appropriate after all. Paradoxsociety (review) 18:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Ambiguous wording
"As the germplasm of such a giant squash variety is commercially provocative"--What does "commercially provocative" mean? Maybe we could be more clear? I would edit it if I knew what was being said. And for "recently 'graduated' back to the public domain"--does that mean "reverted"? In this context, it sounds like it means that it gradually changed, although I don't think that is the way things are done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lriley47 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Requested move 15 September 2015
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Atlantic Giant → Giant pumpkin – Giant pumpkin redirects here and this article has at least at two times in the past been a much more complete article regarding Giant Pumpkins with information continually being removed as it doesn't relate to the name Atlantic Giant, which the primary source used in the article appears to have eviscerated Atlantic Giant as being something special and separate from Giant Pumpkin as being other than a pseudonym. Then some of the past removed information should be restored. The google search result for Giant Pumpkin itself doesn't pull up Wikipedia on the first page, adding wiki to the search term pulls up this page, which in its current form is not helpful. Why the information on Dill's Atlantic Giant was removed from this article is not something I am understanding based on the edit comments; as when searching for ' Atlantic Giant' on google the top results are Dill's Atlantic Giant. Per this https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Atlantic+Giant%2CGiant+Pumpkin%2CDill's+Atlantic+Giant%2CAtlantic+Giant+Powder&year_start=1800&year_end=2015&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CAtlantic%20Giant%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CGiant%20Pumpkin%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CDill%20%27s%20Atlantic%20Giant%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CAtlantic%20Giant%20Powder%3B%2Cc0 where Atlantic Giant Powder was a company producing blasting powder that has court cases that went to the US Supreme Court; Giant Pumpkin has a longer history and is used as often as Atlantic Giant when referring to this type of squash; and will not have the previous mentioned side effects of restrictive focus or legalese. Falconjh (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Survey
- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
- Support
Atlantic Giant is a name used in reference to the giant pumpkin, which in turn is a name used in reference to the giant squash, which references the giant/largest variety of Cucurbita maxima sbsp. duchesne.
Atlantic Giant is only used in reference to the giant squash when it/its fruit color errs "orange" (yellow, pink, red) and not "green" (grey, blue, purple). When it is green it is called Giant Squash. Giant Pumpkin generally means Atlantic Giant - there are alleged separate varieties of giant pumpkin, such as that of Burpee, which is still is simply a derivative of either maxima or specifically the giant squash (molecular genetic test would conclude). All of these names are alleged/vulgate, and have not been tried in court.
Giant Squash is the "most concrete, explanatory, natural, scientifically oriented, inert" representation of the subject. Further than Giant Squash would be a new scientific name, to name the giant squash - Cucurbita maxima subsp. duchesne giganteum would it be? If commercial interests decided to call the giant squash Bubble Gum, the name "Giant Squash" would still be most explanatory, as it correctly represents "the giant pumpkin" as a squash from maxima instead of falsely associating the giant pumpkin with Cucurbita pepo, which has longer been known as Pumpkin.
On Wikipedia, "Corn" redirects to "Maize" for that reason. Corn means grain: it means wheat to some people, and maize to others. Likewise, "Pumpkin" means Cucurbita pepo, which is entirely different than Cucurbita maxima.
Someone more adept to Wikipedia can take it from there, in good faith hopefully. Giant Pumpkin is a hideously mangling, "peasants'" pseudonym for the giant squash. "Giant Squash" is the first name that would come to mind to explain/identify the subject. "Atlantic Giant" should definitely not be used, as there is no scientific/logical/comprehensive/circular (explainable by having its own page) way of explaining it - as "Giant Pumpkin" too is hardly explainable. Both should be subsections under a Wikipedia page entitled Giant Squash, it would seem - is there any other responsible choice? The giant squash variety has been called "Gourd," "Pumpkin," and "Squash" over the past several hundred years that it has existed, when it was extracted from Chile. All of this information is itemized, researched, and generously cited in the Karl source.
~~~~
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.177.132.133 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
- Any additional comments:
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Article issues
- Comment a large amount of material was deleted [1] from this article in April 2014 -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment the 2013 version [2] of the article is a much better article from the standpoint of being written as an article -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Why is there a neutrality-dispute alert? There appears to be absent justification, and consequently a distracting artifact. Where is the dispute? Is the absent dispute going to be cited ad infinitum? Does it not defeat the point of the page entry? The entry contextualizes the facts provided by the PVP and trademark - there is no more information, so how could there be a neutrality dispute? Why does the alert continue with no possibility of resolution? As to the need for additional citation for verifications - two sources are contextualized, the PVP and the trademark. Neither database result can be linked. So, how are citations that can't exist going to be categorically improved? Is this second alert going to remain indefinitely also? That seems like an odd policy. Is no one in charge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.177.132.133 (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment the 2013 version [2] of the article is a much better article from the standpoint of being written as an article -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is a wiki so while there are administrators, no one is really in charge. You are commenting on the explanation of the neutrality dispute actually, so you could verify that properly sourced and relevant information from prior versions that were taken out in order to focus solely on the trademark 'Atlantic Giant' has been restored from the two previous edits and remove the neutrality one. As for the citation, there is a single source cited for something that has national news articles essentially every year in the US published; Additional sources instead of a single one is preferable and expanding the article is certainly easily doable. So that one requires more work. Falconjh (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)