Wikipedia

Talk:Root vegetable/Archive 1

< Talk:Root vegetable
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Kotra in topic Split list to List of underground vegetables
Archive 1


Recent changes

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Marshman, does this wording meet your concerns? — Pekinensis 05:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit clearer. But I looked at the external link and I note that even the UG site does not appear to lump non-root organs under "Root vegetables" but correctly divides them into root and tuber crops. I consider the term "root vegetables" as applied in this article to be strictly from a culinary point of view, as most are not from roots at all. If "root vegetables" is somethinfg you made up, then it needs to be changed. If it is used widely among cooks, then the article is one of culinary science and not of botanical interest and should state that to avoid obvious conflicts with other Wikipedia articles. - Marshman 18:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, but the UG site is not correct, because they list corms, rhizomes, and bulbs among their root and tuber crops. I think that by using the falsely precise phrase, they commit an factual error. By contrast, "root vegetable", although it can be interpreted literally, also has a substantial precedent as a generic term.

But one that ignores the scientific knowledge that these mostly are not root crops - Marshman

I believe that the present article reflects a natural grouping to the cook, the farmer, the anthropologist. I assumed that the word "vegetable" would make clear that this is not a strictly botanical article (for which we have storage organ, which might or might not be better off at the current redirect geophyte, but which certainly should be rewritten by a botanist).

Only the cook, I believe; possibly the farmer. - Marshman
I have a vague memory of root crops being controlled by women, and cereal crops by men, and this having sociological implications, perhaps having to do with the green revolution, but where, when, or why I don't remember at all. If I can find a good reference, I'd like to put it in the article.
I found a very brief note about this happening in Africa, from the author Anthropology and Food, here, but probably not enough detail for the article. — Pekinensis 05:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Jains are prohibited to eat root vegetables for ethical reasons. So perhaps the ethicist. — Pekinensis 05:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

This grouping needs a name, and I believe that the current one is a reasonable compromise. Other possibilities include "edible geophyte" or "geophyte vegetable", "underground vegetable", and "tuberous vegetable" (taking a cue from "tuberous root" that something tuberous need not actually be a tuber), but these seem less than satisfactory.

I have no problem with the name of the article, really. I realize that most people are not technically oriented. But we want to impart knowledge, not "go with the flow". Thus, I would say "root" vegetables—the quotes indicating unusual or improper use of the term 'root'; but I'm happy with the changes you are making. I never try to push science knowledge too hard. I think we are making the point that the term "root" is used loosely here, without putting it in quotes. - Marshman 04:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I contributed most of the text of this article and have made a point of adding links to it, and to corm, rhizome, tuber, et al., wherever possible, specifically with the intent of promoting the awareness that not all things that might appear to be roots are really roots. If the article can be improved to further that goal, then let's do it.

— Pekinensis 19:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have made some more changes, explicitly mentioning the possible confusions, and divided the list into true roots, modified stems, and others. Is this better? — Pekinensis 20:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

As I say above, positive progress is being made. In fact, I like the way the article is developing. Gosh, you amaze me at your willingness to consider other POVs. You should be in charge here (like the King! ;^) - Marshman 04:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. That's a very nice thing to say. — Pekinensis 13:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I have taken the following out of the introduction of the article, because it makes no sense: "Contrary to popular belief, vegetables are not true root vegetables unless their names are appended by "ruta" (ie rutabaga)." A vegetable is a root vegetable or not regardless of what it is called, of course. Apetre (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Unknown anatomical types

Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

These should go into the article once they're identified:

edible part is a tuber - Marshman 18:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Do you have a reference? After wading through tens of articles, the only reasonably careful-looking references I have been able to find on this question are two agricultural extension sites (edible tuberous root, root), and Francois Couplan's The Encyclopedia of Edible Plants of North America, which also says root. — Pekinensis 15:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes:
  • Mabberley, D.J. 1987. The Plant Book. A portable dictionary of the higher plants. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 706 pp. ISBN 0521340608.
But I understand your problem. I'd put it in as a tuberous root (after checking your sources), but continue to research. Mabberley may have been a bit sloppy on this one - Marshman 17:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Done — Pekinensis 01:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
edible part is a "tuberous root" -Marshman 18:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I have found fewer references for this plant, but found at least one halfway respectable source for several classifications (tuber, corm, tuberous root). Does the fact that it only has one "nut" per plant argue against "tuber" and "tuberous root"? (I don't mean to be contentious or obsessive, only cautious.) Thank you — Pekinensis 15:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Should not think so. Chaoyote has but one seed per fruit. I'll look at your web sources and see what I think. ~ I think I would put it down as a tuberous root. I found the web sources you give to be not trustworthy. One is full of spelling errors and poor grammer, and I cannot reconcile that the edible part would be a "corm" - Marshman
Done — Pekinensis 01:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hypocotyl quandary

Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I have only just realized that many root vegetables contain hypocotyl tissue, and I am suddenly in need of more botanical knowledge. I should be able to google my way out eventually, but help would be appreciated.

My understanding:

  • This affects only those previously listed here as taproots.
  • Some of these are essentially all hypocotyl, some all taproot, and some mixed.
  • It may be difficult to distinguish the two types of tissue.

The most problematic aspect of this are that it may be difficult to get a definitive answer for some of the less common vegetables, such as Bunium persicum.

I'm also unsure how to present this within the current listed nest format (of which I am quite fond). My first impulse was to avoid commitment and combine them under the heading "Taproot and/or hypocotyl", but that is not as informative as it could be, and clashes with the higher heading "True roots".

In the interim, I would like to annotate the following list with sources on the anatomic type:

Taproot and/or hypocotyl:

— Pekinensis 16:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

You are dealing (in those "difficult" vegetables) with the part of the plant axis where the stem transitions to the root with various obvious changes in anatomy that might not be so obvious in the mature storage organ. I think your approach is pretty sound. These are going to be taproot vegetable with varying degrees of tissue from the hypocotyl (and therefore "stem") incorporated. You could leave your existing format and simply have a footnote added to those species about which you have information to the effect that the vegetable is a taproot that incorporates hypocotyl (stem) tissue to some degree at the proximal (upper) end. This approach will allow you to flag species as you get information and to not worry about others that you simply do not have information on. I do not think it changes anything to say that a carrot is a root vegetable or a carrot is root vegetable with some hypocotyl tissue incorporated. It is still a root vegetable. - Marshman 17:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I have integrated the hypocotyl and taproot lists, but have put off making any statement of how much hypocotyl tissue is involved until I have more authorative and non-contradictory sources. Thanks — Pekinensis 20:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
My sense is that what you are looking for is not needed in this article. Just put a footnote on the appropriate ones that says: "...some hypocotyle (embryonic stem) tissue involved; see artice for details", or something to that effect. Then the specifics for each plant can be detailed under the article on that plant, and carried however far (or not far) " authorative and non-contradictory sources" allow. The idea of outlining by categories is to present as much basic information as possible in a simple, easily read format. If your goal instead becomes packing as much authoratative detail into your outline as exists, you will quickly lose sight of the original purpose and advantage of the system you have developed. - Marshman 23:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I definitely agree about leaving further details to the individual plant articles. I reverted your suggestion for that reason, and because I don't want to imply that those without asterisks don't contain hypocotyl tissue, since I haven't checked all of them.
I'm still concerned that there might be some plants whose edible portion is entirely hypocotyl tissue, listed there among the taproots, but I'm willing to let it lie for now.
— Pekinensis 03:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Doubtful that your concern would be the case in a taproot vegetable. And I really think you are being too "anal" about this B^), but I leave it in your control as this clearly is something you are thoroughly into completing in a proper way and I do trust your judgement - Marshman 04:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't feel anal, but just today we decided to adjust my medication for analogous real world reasons, so you may have a point 8°). I appreciate the trust. I'm happy enough with the article as is for the moment. The wording is sufficiently vague that even in the unlikely event that the hypocotyl police do arrive, we can't be held for anything too serious. — Pekinensis 07:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Graph

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Here's an alternate presentation of the production data. The width of the "other" box is distorted slightly by the length of the word "other".

potato
328 		cassava
203 		sweet potato
127 		yams
40 		taro
11 		other
7

— Pekinensis 18:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The one you have there now is better. But I'm curious. You are trying to make a bar graph, right? Can you see bars on your browser?? I do not. - Marshman 18:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh dear. What browser is yours? I tested the version currently in the article with (one version each of) Opera, FireFox, and IE, and each showed the bars. I tested it with w3m, and I couldn't see the bars of course, but it degraded gracefully. There should be a built-in facility for this. — Pekinensis 18:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I tried something. Did it help? — Pekinensis 18:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
If that did not, then how about this?
Potato 328
   
Cassava 203
   
Sweet potato 127
   
Yams 40
   
Taro 11
   
All others 7
   
And if not that, then how about this?
Potato 328
   
Cassava 203
   
Sweet potato 127
   
Yams 40
   
Taro 11
   
All others 7
   
— Pekinensis 19:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Nope, nothing on the article page. On this page, the background is a light color, and the "graph" is appearing as an area lacking color. But the whole block, not anything poportional to the numbers as you are attempting. But then, I did not know that tricked worked in HTML either ? I'm using IE Ver. 6.0 and a bunch of subnumbers. - Marshman 21:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I checked IE by calling my wife and asking if she could see it, not realizing she had recently adopted Opera. My mistake in not making my purpose clearer to her.
I'm using IE 6.0 something right now, and I believe I have fixed the problem. Do you see this? Pekinensis 02:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
YES, it works! - Marshman 18:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Potato 328
   
Cassava 203
   
Sweet potato 127
   
Yams 40
   
Taro 11
   
All others 7
   

Just curious: why is the graph gone now? --SB_Johnny | talk 13:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Where's this definition from?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article says 'Root vegetables are underground plant parts used as vegetables. They are called root vegetables for lack of a better generic term, but include both true roots such as tuberous roots and taproots, as well as non-roots such as tubers, rhizomes, corms, and bulbs.'

I've always known root vegetables as roots of plants used as vegetables, thus the name. My dictionary defines a root vegetable as 'A turnip, carrot, or other vegetable which grows as the root of a plant.' If we go by the definition of the article, we might as well call them 'underground vegetables' rather than root vegetables.--Jcvamp 23:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Shallot bulbs

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the first paragraph of the article, it says that root vegetables do not include bulbs. When the reader scrolls down the page, however, there's a pic of shallots. Anyone wanna explain?72.92.19.144 (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Move

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
    • Please note that by not moving the article, roots which can only be consumed after heating them (some of which are added already in article) can technically not be added (the term vegetable implies that its consumed raw). This means that allot of crops fall off the wagon and since no seperate article exists for them this is a bit of a problem. This was btw also one of the main reasons why I requested the move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.91.20 (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      Not sure how you came to the view that "vegetable" implies it is consumed raw. Our article Vegetable explicitly disagrees, and several dictionaries[15][16] make no mention of raw vs. cooked. -kotra (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Other edible root tuber plants

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Split list to List of underground vegetables

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

As described above (as well as in the lead section of this article), "root vegetables" (as well as the other proposed names, "tubers" and "tuberous roots") do not include bulbs, corms, or rhizomes. These vegetables, however, are listed in the section Root vegetable#List of underground vegetables by anatomical type, which accurately refers to itself as the broader term "underground vegetables". I believe the list is encyclopedic, but is out of place in this article. I then propose that this list section be split off into its own article, adding an appropriate lead section. -kotra (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that some of the underground vegetables are then incorrect, some added entries were in fact starchy roots (not falling in the category of "vegetable") Personally, I'd scrap the distinction and just mention all nutritious underground roots. The level of nutritiousness can then simply be shown in a extra table showing the kcal/100gr and/or minerals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.5.244 (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
This depends on your definition of "vegetable". Botanically, you may be correct that by some models, starchy roots are not vegetables. However, by far the more common definition of "vegetable" is the culinary one, which includes all of the above. In addition to our article Vegetable, see also List of culinary vegetables, Merriam-Webster, several other dictionaries, etc. -kotra (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Root_vegetable/Archive_1&oldid=1137163533"