This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism 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.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism articles
Asking on here before removing as it's been subject of talk before.
I think we should remove the 'Venn diagram because' it doesn't really illustrate "Some botanical fruit are vegetables" any better than the text.
All it actually shows is that "tomatoes are a culinary vegetable and a botanical fruit," with 5 arbitrary images, which are too small to discern properly; I think the photograph showing the selection of 'fruit often known as vegetables' (which also includes tomatoes) covers this information already and better.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Propose that:
"In botanical usage, the term "fruit" also includes many structures that are not commonly called "fruits", such as nuts, bean pods, corn kernels, tomatoes, and wheat grains."
is changed to:
"In botanical usage, the term "fruit" also includes many structures that are not commonly called "fruits" in everyday language, such as nuts, bean pods, corn kernels, tomatoes, and wheat grains."
In the corresponding image the kiwi definitely has seeds, they are visible. The apple also likely has seeds. Thus the image description is misleading.--Reciprocist (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The table in the "Table of fleshy fruit examples" section has stone fruit listed as an example of accessory fruit. To my knowledge no stone fruit has accessory tissue. I propose removing this from the examples.Michaplot (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"In culinary language, a fruit is the sweet- or not sweet- (even sour-) tasting produce of a specific plant (e.g., a peach, pear or lemon)." This translates to, "A fruit is the product of a plant." Does this sentence have any merit? OrewaTel (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it's trying, but failing, to express something tricky, i.e. that plant products that are not botanically fruits can be used as such – rhubarb is perhaps the prime example. So while I agree that the sentence is not useful, it needs to be fixed, not removed. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed watermelon is a fruit not a vegetable. You are correct, fruits like tomatoes that have a more savory flavor are classified as vegetables in cooking rather than a fruit, however botanically speaking they are fruits as you stated. Woolmadj (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
note; The was something I accidentally added at the last second while fixing my grammar. I do not know how I put it there though. Woolmadj (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is mention of pollination and of symbiotic relationship with animals, but sorely missing is the critical dependence of many fruit species upon pollinators. Can anyone take up this task? --Gregrwm (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Under "Food Uses" carrots are not a dry fruit and Rice is a grain not a dry fruit, there is no reason for these to be here they are pointless and incorrect. Woolmadj (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Carrot seeds are a biological fruit but are not a culinary fruit. So while carrot seeds have a mention in the biological section, neither carrots nor carrot seeds (nor carrot tops) belong in the culinary section. OrewaTel (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I realize that a carrot has a fruit same with potatoes, beats, radishes, etc ,however, it simply said carrot not carrot fruit when people say carrot most of the population will think carrot root, but thank you for correcting me on this topic. Woolmadj (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apples are listed as a fruit which is not univerally agreed upon, section below -
"For example, in botany, a fruit is a ripened ovary or carpel that contains seeds, e.g., an apple"
Apples are often considered a false fruit as they develop atleast in part from the receptacle not the ovary.
I would cite the below,
"False fruits arise from inferior ovaries. In apples (Malus domestica) and pears (Pyrus communis) the mesocarp merges together with the receptacle with no discernible exocarp, because the carpels fuse with receptacle tissues during fruit development."
This is in the section Botanical vs Culinary? Agreed apples are not the best example of a botanical fruit. I've substituted orange. OrewaTel (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of a botanical vegetable is not well defined
Main dictionaries, e.g. Oxford, Cambridge and Britanica only list a single definition of fruit. See e.g. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fruit. The wikipedia page is not consistent with this and instead defines the notion of a botanical vegetable, classifying e.g. tomato in this. No consistent definition of this is provided. As assertion is made "In culinary language, a fruit is the sweet- or not sweet- (even sour-) tasting produce of a specific plant" but that does not match with the dictionary definitions. The mis-classification of tomato is a common mistake not a culinary definition.
A reference is made to the supreme court case of Nix v. Hedden. However it is unclear why the US changing the legal definition of a tomato should mean that a non-dictionary definition should be used on the global Wikipedia page. A clear cut definition of a culinary vegetable should be included if it exists not simply a list of vegetables. I maintain that such a definition does not exist. If it does a links to a reputable dictionary with this definition should be included. Hallomotocar (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no definition of a botanic vegetable. (If it existed then it would include everything from the plant kingdom.) There is a definition of a botanical fruit and consequently a definition of a botanical non-fruit can be constructed. Unfortunately in common speech we use a different meaning of fruit that is best described by giving a list. (Tomatoes and Bell Peppers are not fruits but strawberries are. Even Rhubarb stalks are sometimes called fruits.) Many dictionaries are not helpful. They conflate the jargon botanical definition with the everyday culinary usage.
The US court case is useful because the justices were testing the normal (non-dictionary) definition of fruit. They asked industry-insiders questions such as, "Have you ever heard tomato described as a fruit?" Meanwhile our definition of a culinary fruit is pathetic. (Sweet or not sweet produce of a specific plant) The best definition I have heard is, "If you serve it with jelly (US Jello) and custard then it's a fruit." Perhaps we can make up a better definition and then add some inevitable exceptions. OrewaTel (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pod types and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19#Pod types until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Seems a useful clarification to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
