Talk:Apple

"Apple Popularity" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Apple Popularity has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 18 § Apple Popularity until a consensus is reached. cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Organizing the references

Due to the very large number of references I think using something like shortened footnote template (Template:Sfn) so at least the book, journal, and magazine references can be organized into alphabetical lists may be helpful to readers. An example of the final result would be like the references for Ludwigsburg Palace as organized by Vami IV. Would this be too disruptive? Do other editors prefer the current inline citation for being easier to quickly use? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a bit of what the Highway Code calls an "unusual manoeuvre" in the middle of the road, given that there is a clearly established citation format here (policy forbids a change in this situation). What is escaping me here is why, given that this is a Good Article already, we'd want to start rearranging the deckchairs? And actually, 114 refs is not exceptionally large... I've just tidied up Anggun at GAR, purely by chance, and it has 350 refs post-cleanup: a little while ago it had 408. If you're thinking of FAC then good luck with that; if you've not done one before, I'd suggest a smaller topic to start with. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Glad I asked rather than just jumping in. Thanks. I had previously changed Penstemon over to sfn citation and had not been told it was an "unusual manoeuvre". Probably because no other active editors are watching the page, unlike here.

I was not yet thinking about FAC, it seems like something that is not well suited to my skill set. Just looking at the article with an eye for making it a bit more useful and pretty with the things I know how to do. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

This apple is pretty shiny already for a GA. There are many other botany articles that could certainly do with a bit of love and attention, if not careful shining up with a soft cloth ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2025

Apples are an incredible fruit, containing several nutrients that can aid the human body. There are many apples in the world. Ermmaam (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done - no comment was offered to make an improvement in the article with a WP:RS source. As the article nutrition section shows, an apple is a low-nutrient food source. Zefr (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Error in table underneath Cultivation - Production

The table seems to be giving Turkey's numbers from 2022 to the US. It states that the US produced 4.8 million tonnes of apples in 2022, but looking at the linked article, Turkey produced 4.8 million tonnes, and the US produced 4.4 million. 2600:1700:7831:1CB0:5354:E688:333C:C63B (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Needless replacement of a lead image

I'm disappointed to see needless replacement of a lead image here. The existing 'fruit' image is compact, serves well for its function of recognition, and is clear and uncluttered. The undiscussed replacement was clearly less good in those respects. Per WP:BRD, even if a needlessly bold intervention was ok under the rules the first time, it was a lot less good the second time. Per the status quo ante, after one revert the existing image or text should stand unless and until a consensus to change it is reached: nothing like that was even attempted here. Also, the formatting of the infobox was needlessly squashed up at the same time, not great. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the 'Cripp's Pink' image is better due to being less cluttered. In addition the white background highlights the displayed apple more clearly. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Pinging user @Nerd271: to ensure he's aware of the discussion. As to the matter of this discussion, I've run into similar issues elsewhere on WP - if the subject is particularly photogenic or compelling, there's a strong tendency for editors to swap in place their own favored photos, as well as adding more. A notable case is the article 'Cat' - feel free to click the edit button and wonder at the glory of the banner presented! I don't think that this article needs to go to such extremes, but I think an embargo on swapping in/out existing images would be appropriate - we have a good variety of images already, and new apple varieties are not all that frequent/common. I do think the use of 'galleries' in multiple place in the article isn't a good visual choice. I've rarely seen galleries used as other than a single larger grouping at the bottom of an article. It breaks the flow of the article for me. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks. I guess I feel that small relevant galleries per section are more helpful than nothing followed by an unstructured splurge at the end; in this case, with a large number of uninformative images down there too, i.e. it had proven totally unmanageable. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)