This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Latest comment: 19 hours ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I believe the present concept passes WP:N, hence the fork from Honey. In other Wikipedia languages, the concept might appear as a section of Honeydew instead. Also notice there's already a separate article about Pine honey, which is a subtype of honeydew honey. fgnievinski (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Generally the title here would just be a redirect to the main honey article, but what you mention would mostly fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The different types of honey aren't inherently notable, but are mostly a case of WP:INHERIT from the notability of honey overall. A lot improvements, removal of unverified content, etc. were already recently done at the honey article that aren't reflected here. If there's content to expand that really demonstrates notability, that can be done at the honey article and then split out, but that should be very clear over at the parent article before that happens. KoA (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
If someone wants to outright delete the redirect they can propose that, but I was not suggesting the deletion route. WP:PROSPLIT would have been a better way to go with this one, so to roughly get it back to a status quo after the bold split I'll set up the redirect now (and as an WP:ATD). Feel free to propose the split at the honey page if you would like though, but it's probably best to get consensus for such a split first at this point since it's clear the split was disputed. KoA (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Fgnievinski, you were already aware the content was disputed and required consensus to restore it, so that shouldn't have happened regardless of the redirect. The burden is on you to get consensus for this split. The redirect was taking this article back as close to a status quo as it could without deleting it and normally you don't revert disputed content back in after that. You should either get consensus for the split or leave the redirect. I gave guidance above on discussing this at the honey page if you wish to get consensus for this, which would have been the first step before even getting to the point of needing AfD. KoA (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
