Talk:List of coffee varieties/Archive 1

Archive 1

Similarties to page on sfbayaxis.com

This article is almost an exact copy of this article: San Francisco Bay Area Coffee - Varietals Explained

tisk tisk, right you are. Spose it needs to be deleted then....what's the process? LilDice 04:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. That article is particularly close, though not identical, to the original version of the article. However, I wonder if it's not an issue of that site copying from wikipedia instead. Take a look at the linked text at the top of their page Varietal Coffee Explained. It's a link to the April 4th version of the wikipedia page. And it looks like that's the identical version. I would think that if this page started as a copy of the sfbayaxis site, the identical version would be the initial one.

Further, the original author has been an active editor in good standing for quite some time now, so I would be surprised if this were an instance of the wiki article being a copyvio. I'll ask him to weigh in on the issue though. ScottW 16:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The text in the "coffee varietals" page used to be in the Coffee article. My involvement was taking it and splitting it out into this article to avoid cluttering up the main article. The text as it existed was already here when I did that, so I can't say for sure whether we copied sfbayaxis or they copied us. Nandesuka 17:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Verified sfbayaxis.com stole from Wikipedia

I went back and checked the main Coffee article, you can see the evolution of this section here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coffee&oldid=24697519 LilDice 05:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Coffee production error

I removed a line that states that Columbia is the second largest coffee producer. This contradicts the Wikipedia page that lists the world's major coffee producers where Columbia is 4th behind Brazil, Vietnam, and Indonesia. Perhaps Columbia is the 2nd highest in terms of Arabica production, but I really am not sure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bescheurt (talk • contribs) 21:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Fixed this, what article had the chart on? Things can change depending on the conditions each year, but we should update the bad page also. LilDice 22:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Economics of Coffee" has the world producers of coffee. It references the UN FAO, which I trust. Vietnam has been ahead of Columbia in terms of coffee production for years now. Also the reference added is not valid. Clearly, Germany is not #3 in coffee production. Those numbers only reference to total value of coffee trade, not production. The UN source is more valid ---Bescheurt

The source I added is UN/WTO (The International Trade Centre (ITC) is the technical cooperation agency of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) for operational, enterprise-oriented aspects of trade development.). But yeah that is based on the value of the coffee...which is what you usually talk about, not the weight. LilDice 00:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The numbers clearly don't add up in the production list. The Agregate/Total says "7 742 675", which is less than each of the top three alone.

I have removed the entire /Production/ section, as it provided no useful information in context with the article as it is written. It also hasn't been maintained since 2008.

The map is not clear

Map extremely hard to understand.

I've noticed that the map used cannot be understood. The colours are too similar to a colourblind person like me so I cannot tell which parts of the world grow the particular varities of coffee.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.228.224 (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC) (Comment moved from top of page, signature manually reconstructed from the history by --Chris Jefferies (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC))

Inaccuracies in the coffee production map image

There are many countries shown in the map, which produce a great amount of arabica, such as Indonesia, but are shown only to produce robusta. There are also countries shown on the map to only produce arabica which do also produce very fine robustas, such as Guatemala and Mexico. Unless the map is displayed simply to demonstrate that different countries produce different amounts of robusta and arabica, the map is useless or even misleading and needs to be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.17.190 (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

According to this map, Asia only produces robusta coffee when in fact most of these countries produce a significant amount of arabica (particularly India, Sumatra, PNG)Ameza21 (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This map is missing quite a few countries. Most noticeably northern Mexico, Papua New Guinea, and Australia are not shown to produce coffee Ameza21 (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the map as it provides no useful information within the context of the article. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Varietals?

Does anyone know the origin of this term? Is it a traditional and widely accepted word in the world of coffee growing?

The reason I ask is that it is grammatically incorrect. The word 'varietal' is an adjective and should not normally be used as a noun. It should be varietal something, for example 'varietal differences'. The title of the article should be 'Coffee varieties' unless 'coffee varietals' is already widely used.

If indeed it is widely accepted we should keep the name but explain the usage in the article, with citations if possible. But if it's not widely accepted we should rename the article using correct English.--Chris Jefferies 14:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As there has been no comment on this for more than six months I plan to be proactive and rename the article. I propose either 'Coffee varieties' or 'Coffee cultivars'. Cultivar is almost certainly to be preferred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisjj (talk • contribs) 15:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

While reading around the topic a bit more in preparation for the name change, I've discovered that this strange term 'varietals' is quite common in the coffee trade, also in the wine trade. Probably best to leave it alone after all in that case. What a pity nobody else pointed that out some time during the last six months. --Chris Jefferies (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In the context of the content at present the term is used incorrectly in any case. 'Varietals' of Arabica would refer to 'Kent', 'Bourbon', 'Pacamara' or similar variety of coffea arabica. At present many of the items presented as 'varietals' are simply regional names derived from the area in which the coffee is grown - such as 'Jamaica Blue Mountain'. (Gb grendel (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

Jamaica Blue Mountain is indeed a varietal, a natural genetic adaptation of Typica that produces unique qualities from the original Typica var. There is however mention of Sulawesi Toraja Kalossi, which is not a varietal, but a region that grows vars. S795 and S33, the latter of which is not listed. Also, varietal is the most common termint the public domain orthography, while varietal and cultivar are used interchangeably in professional circles. --174.2.5.208 (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is highly erroneous. The term varietal (also "cultivar" or "variety") is used to refer to a specific sub-species, mutation, or hybrid of the species C. Arabica or C. Canephora (aka Robusta). The "varietals" listed in this article are technically referred to within the specialty coffee industry as "origins" and have little to do with the varietal. 18:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)68.79.219.34 (talk)

I've done a little research on this. Google searches for "coffee varietals", "coffee varieties", and "coffee cultivars" yield 5010, 89 300, and 2480 hits respectively (on 28th May 2008). On that basis it looks as if we should change the article name to 'Coffee varieties' and note that the correct botanical term 'cultivar' is not often used and that the term 'varietal' is also sometimes used. --Chris Jefferies (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been in the coffee industry for 8 years and have never heard the term "varieties" used; professionals have used "varietals" when referring to specific cultivar of coffee (i.e. "bourbon varietal" "geisha varietal" "mokka varietal"). That being said, if it's linguisticly wrong, I have no problems with listing the article as coffee varieties but I think there should be mention of the common use of varietal. The google fight is irrelevant. You could do a google fight of "colombia coffee" vs. "columbia coffee" and the latter wins 10 to 1 even though it is incorrect. Ameza21 (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Specialty Coffee Association of America (of which I'm a member) has done a decent job of trying to tackle the problem with this page: http://www.scaa.org/?page=resources&d=a-botanists-guide-to-specialty-coffee. I propose that we implement those same guidelines on coffee pages here — in essence; if it originated in a lab, it's a cultivar. If it originated in nature, it is a variety. And we stop using the term 'varietal.' There isn't any authority that I can find that has a clear, definitive answer so I think this is probably as good as we can do for now.

Thoughts?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the term 'varital'. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No mention of the Philippines

According to this page (http://www.da.gov.ph/agribiz/coffee.html), the Philippines "is one of the few countries where all four varieties of coffee are grown on a commercial scale." It is also an exporting member of the International Coffee Organization and yet, the Philippines is not highlighted on the coffee map. How can we update the map? Does anyone know? I'm not really a wiki contributor so I don't know that much about uploading files.

Requested move

Note - Some discussion has already taken place above under the heading 'Varietals?'. Further discussion on whether or not to move (rename) this page should take place here instead. --Chris Jefferies (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone monitoring this page object to renaming the article 'Coffee varieties'? Now is the time to speak up, and this section is the right place :-) --Chris Jefferies (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

An admin (Nancy) completed the move recently. Many thanks, much appreciated. I will now remove the notice from the talk page. --Chris Jefferies (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Robusta image

The picture of Robusta coffee beans is rather misleading as it shows very badly processed beans that represent the lower end of the market.

Well processed Robusta has the color and uniformity of the beans in the Arabica picture on the same page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.10.2 (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that this is not a good example of properly processed robusta. I will take a couple pictures and post for consideration Ameza21 (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Mocha

There's more at Mocha, Yemen#MochaVariety than in the Mocha bullet point in the accompanying article. Others than i could better adapt what's at the city's article for use here, and perhaps dial it back in light of the increased value of a lk from there to that bullet point.
--Jerzy•t 20:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, yeah, and the graphic shows no current coffee production on the Arabian Peninsula. If Mocha was grown in Yemen a few hundred years ago, when did they stop? Or was it always imported from Africa, and for sale at Mocha (by those skilled in both international trade and dealing with the East African producers) to traders who weren't as well disposed to acquire that skill? I'm adding a {{fact}} tag.
  --Jerzy•t 20:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  

I don't know where the map on this article was generated from, but Yemen does in fact still grow and export coffee. It is typically mokka/mocha variety other varieties in the region exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameza21 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Cultivar, Species, or Single Origin?:

It isn't clear what this article is about {cultivar, species, single origin}. They are all presented in this article without clear distinction from one another. When coffee professionals speak of varietal, they are speaking of cultivar {bourbon, caturra, geisha, mokka, cataui, typica, pacamara}. This article is mainly mentioning differences in single origin coffee (i.e. Colombia vs. Sumatra vs. Ethiopian). It also references several species of coffee {arabica, canephora, liberica}. So which is the intended subject of this article? Ameza21 (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Kona coffee is also an origin name, consisting of various cultivars that are grown in a specific region. Having one list might still be the simplest way to go, but explain the individual concepts. That is, the article seems to use "varieties" in the venacular English sense, not the botanical sense. Not sure exactly how to explain this. W Nowicki (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am working on a draft that I hope will address this issue. Please take a look at the draft and feel free to comment there regarding the draft itself or here regarding this discussion. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to single origin and clarified that the article discusses subspecies, which include both varieties and cultivars. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Bad Map

It's been spammed all over wikipedia's coffee pages, and it is manifestly inaccurate and a possible copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.152.92 (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the map. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of coffee varieties. 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/20130116021046/http://www.coffee-beans-arabica.com/info/world_coffee_characteristics_11.htm to http://www.coffee-beans-arabica.com/info/world_coffee_characteristics_11.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)