Talk:Oriental melon/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
nomenclature is needed for the topic
It's is the matter of its traceability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.105.161 (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Regarding cultivation
Kowiki has contradicting information, claiming that it is grown in numerous East Asian countries while also claiming its production is restricted to South Korea. Anyone got any clarification for that mess? 180.66.165.186 (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Folk medicine
A search of PubMed for reviews or even useable single scientific studies yields no good sources. This book source is a superficial reference, providing only a list of folk medicine uses. Neither of the two references used in the book applies to the supposed anti-disease effects. This 2001 reference fails reliability per WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDDATE. --Zefr (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Copy/paste move
@Manduco: First of all, copy and paste moves are forbidden by Wikipedia policy. See WP:CUTPASTE. Second of all, I have no idea what your intention was by removing this content. This is commonly called the 'oriental melon' in English. It is cultivated in Korea and Japan...the article's subject has not changed. I simply expanded it. It started as a translation of the Korean Wikipedia page, which was lacking in information on this fruit as it exists outside Korea. If you look at the article before I expanded it, it is was very clear that it was about 'Cucumis melo var. makuwa', and most sources cited then used the 'oriental melon' name for this. I've added many more sources...and could find no good ones for 'Korean melon'. More importantly, I wanted to add information about the important role this fruit has played in Japanese culture, as that information was completely lacking in the old article. RGloucester — ☎ 04:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: The move was undiscussed. The page has long been about specific cultivars of the plant Cucumis melo var. makuwa, called Korean melon. I saw you moved it to Oriental melon without discussion and added content about other Asian melon varieties. I suggest that the Japanese Golden Makuwa and other varieties be dealt in a separate article. They look different, taste different, have different names, and are different cultivars. This isn't a plant article but a cultivar (group) article. --Manduco (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: Of course Golden Makuwa and other Makuwa melons are varieties of Cucumis melo var. makuwa. This article hasn't been about all Cucumis melo var. makuwa but about specific ones called Korean melon. You can either make a bigger scope article under the name Oriental melon or Cucumis melo var. makuwa, or make a Makuwa melon article about the specific cultivars grown in Japan. --Manduco (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- There is no specific variety called 'Korean melon'. The literature is clear. It is called 'oriental melon', with 'Korean melon' an alternative name in some literature, but not some sort of special label, and extremely uncommon. See this journal, for instance: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5217523/. There is no reason for a separate article. They are the same fruit. The article has always referenced cultivation in Japan and China, and has always referenced literature referring to the oriental melon, and has always been prefaced by a broad declaration of 'Cucumis melo var. makuwa'. It has NEVER been a specific article about some Korean cultivar. RGloucester — ☎ 04:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: Not all Cucumis melo var. makuwa are called Korean melon. This article hasn't been about all Cucumis melo var. makuwa but about specific ones called Korean melon. Of course Golden Makuwa and other Makuwa melons are varieties of Cucumis melo var. makuwa, so you can either make a bigger scope article under the name Oriental melon or Cucumis melo var. makuwa, or make a Makuwa melon article about the specific cultivars grown in Japan. I suggest the latter because Cucumis melo var. makuwa is not an accepted variety (biology but a synonym of Cucumis melo. So, both Korean melons and Japanese Makuwa melons are in fact cultivars of Cucumis melo in the 'Makuwa' group. --Manduco (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- It was not about 'specific ones called Korean melons'. It HAS ALWAYS referenced cultivation in East Asia broadly, and always referenced sources about 'oriental melon'. Go back through the article history. If you want to claim a distinction, you need to bring some reliable sources to the table. There is no evidence that there is a separate 'Korean melon'. RGloucester — ☎ 04:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: Go back and check this version just befor your edits. It starts as "The Korean melon[1] (Cucumis melo L. var. makuwa) or chamoe (참외), following its Korean name, is a type of melon primarily grown in Korea." --Manduco (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Look, for instance, at the first version of the article. How can you claim this article was about anything other than the oriental melon? "The Korean melon (Cucumis melo L. Makuwa Group) or chamoe (참외) is a type of melon primarily grown in Korea, Japan, and North China". With all sources referencing 'oriental' melons. The change to 'primarily in Korea' comes from a fly-by-night IP address, much later. That sort of nonsense is exactly why I expanded the article. RGloucester — ☎ 05:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: This article used to be "Korean melon" article about the Korean melons specifically, but with a plant infobox saying Cucumis melo var. makuwa, which was not quite right because Cucumis melo var. makuwa has cultivars other than Korean melons. Later it became a cultivar article without the plant infobox because the scope had always been about the specific cultivars called Korean melon. You moved article without discussion to modify the scope without consensus, and I find it problematic. Japanese Makuwa varieties needs a separate article, and both Korean melons and Japanese Makuwa melons can be dealt in Cucumis melo article's variety section. --Manduco (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: Also you needed to discuss the move first especially when you want to move the article to a new name to give it a new scope entirely. --Manduco (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- I WP:BOLDly moved the article, yes. But my move was endorsed by the content of the article, which has always been about the 'oriental melon'. It was never about a specific group called 'Korean melons', which does not exist, but was using 'Korean melon' as an alternative name for 'Oriental melon', as is clear in the first version of the article. I will file a formal move request. RGloucester — ☎ 05:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: The first version is clearly about the Korean melons, not about other cultivars. It begins with "The Korean melon (Cucumis melo L. Makuwa Group) or chamoe (참외) is" and it describes that variety of melon fruit's color, size, favlor and "impressed longitudinal stripes". It continues to mention the fruits' culinary use: "pickled into a dish called chamoe jangajji". It does not mention any other melon varieties in the Cucumis melo L. Makuwa Group. --Manduco (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- It also says cultivated in Japan and North China, so I really don't know what you're on about. RGloucester — ☎ 05:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: The first version is clearly about the Korean melons, not about other cultivars. It begins with "The Korean melon (Cucumis melo L. Makuwa Group) or chamoe (참외) is" and it describes that variety of melon fruit's color, size, favlor and "impressed longitudinal stripes". It continues to mention the fruits' culinary use: "pickled into a dish called chamoe jangajji". It does not mention any other melon varieties in the Cucumis melo L. Makuwa Group. --Manduco (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- I WP:BOLDly moved the article, yes. But my move was endorsed by the content of the article, which has always been about the 'oriental melon'. It was never about a specific group called 'Korean melons', which does not exist, but was using 'Korean melon' as an alternative name for 'Oriental melon', as is clear in the first version of the article. I will file a formal move request. RGloucester — ☎ 05:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- It was not about 'specific ones called Korean melons'. It HAS ALWAYS referenced cultivation in East Asia broadly, and always referenced sources about 'oriental melon'. Go back through the article history. If you want to claim a distinction, you need to bring some reliable sources to the table. There is no evidence that there is a separate 'Korean melon'. RGloucester — ☎ 04:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: Not all Cucumis melo var. makuwa are called Korean melon. This article hasn't been about all Cucumis melo var. makuwa but about specific ones called Korean melon. Of course Golden Makuwa and other Makuwa melons are varieties of Cucumis melo var. makuwa, so you can either make a bigger scope article under the name Oriental melon or Cucumis melo var. makuwa, or make a Makuwa melon article about the specific cultivars grown in Japan. I suggest the latter because Cucumis melo var. makuwa is not an accepted variety (biology but a synonym of Cucumis melo. So, both Korean melons and Japanese Makuwa melons are in fact cultivars of Cucumis melo in the 'Makuwa' group. --Manduco (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- There is no specific variety called 'Korean melon'. The literature is clear. It is called 'oriental melon', with 'Korean melon' an alternative name in some literature, but not some sort of special label, and extremely uncommon. See this journal, for instance: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5217523/. There is no reason for a separate article. They are the same fruit. The article has always referenced cultivation in Japan and China, and has always referenced literature referring to the oriental melon, and has always been prefaced by a broad declaration of 'Cucumis melo var. makuwa'. It has NEVER been a specific article about some Korean cultivar. RGloucester — ☎ 04:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Removal of the linktext to 참외
@RGloucester: Please do not add and remove the linktext templates selectively. You have added a linktext template to the Japanese word 真桑瓜, which currently is a red link in the English wiktionary, and removed the linktext to the Korean word 참외, which is a blue link. Such nationalist edits are not constructive. --Joyakdol (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- I did not mean to remove that link, and I apologise for that. It seems to have been an error when I inserted the name box into the article. However, removing the pronunciation and native orthography of both names was intentional: they appear in the box on the side, and do not need to clutter the body of the article, where they are mere duplicate information. Finally, the Chinese name 黄金瓜 is listed in the Lim source as the romanised huangjingua, which can be confirmed at Baidu. The caption of the picture on the Chinese Wikipedia page is unsourced, and seems to be a machine translation of the photograph's file name. Please read the sources for this article before removing content. I really don't understand how I could be a 'nationalist' for a nation I have nothing to do with...but say what you will. RGloucester — ☎ 18:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Requested move 14 September 2018
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. RGloucester — ☎ 23:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Korean melon → Oriental melon – This fruit is not commonly called the 'Korean melon'. The normal name is 'Oriental melon'. It is cultivated not just in Korea, but also in other parts of East Asia. See this journal article, which addresses the matter. Sources in the article to date, including Korean ones, have used the 'Oriental melon' name. There is no reason we should not do so as well. I've also expanded the information about Japanese cultivation of these melons, which was mentioned from the first day this article was created, and which has always been about 'Cucumis melo var. makuwa', not about some specific 'Korean' melon. The primary source for the article at its start, a book by Lim T.K., is very clear, which you can confirm for yourself. An IP address at one point tried to remove this information, which is what caught my eye. As with all matters pertaining to East Asian relations, this article has become a nationalist lighting rod. However, there is no need for this. No one needs to 'claim' this fruit. It has a long history of cultivation in East Asia, and we should not give in to fly-by-night nationalist IPs. 'Oriental melon' is the common and proper name for this fruit. RGloucester — ☎ 05:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose and comment Google search for "Korean melon" returns 220,000 results, while "Oriental melon" returns 40,200. If the article is moved, the current title should be mentioned in bold letters in the lead sentence, rather than being removed as in this edit, which also seems like a nationalist response. --Joyakdol (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- A plain Google search is not sufficient, as it includes many unreliable sources (see WP:DIVIDEDUSE). Switch to a book search, and you'll find 152 hits for 'Korean melon', but 895 for 'oriental melon'. The scientific literature has always favoured 'oriental melon'. More importantly, I find your search to be incorrect. I get 62,500 hits for 'oriental melon', and 59,800 for Korean melon. My original removal of 'Korean melon' was to avoid an endless listing of names in the lead that could lead to nationalist claiming...that is to say, this fruit has also been called 'Japanese cantaloupe' and 'Makuwa melon'. As you can see here, the fruit has a diverse heritage...a neutral name allows for the article to flourish. RGloucester — ☎ 13:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Just commenting on the Google statistics, the Google trends page for the oriental melon versus the Korean melon shows a worldwide trend towards preferring "Korean melon". Pagliaccious (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- We title articles based on the common name in RS, not on the basis of perceived search trends...RGloucester — ☎ 15:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that is why I said I was commenting on your previous discussion on google search results and not supporting nor opposing the move. Pagliaccious (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- We title articles based on the common name in RS, not on the basis of perceived search trends...RGloucester — ☎ 15:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Just commenting on the Google statistics, the Google trends page for the oriental melon versus the Korean melon shows a worldwide trend towards preferring "Korean melon". Pagliaccious (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- A plain Google search is not sufficient, as it includes many unreliable sources (see WP:DIVIDEDUSE). Switch to a book search, and you'll find 152 hits for 'Korean melon', but 895 for 'oriental melon'. The scientific literature has always favoured 'oriental melon'. More importantly, I find your search to be incorrect. I get 62,500 hits for 'oriental melon', and 59,800 for Korean melon. My original removal of 'Korean melon' was to avoid an endless listing of names in the lead that could lead to nationalist claiming...that is to say, this fruit has also been called 'Japanese cantaloupe' and 'Makuwa melon'. As you can see here, the fruit has a diverse heritage...a neutral name allows for the article to flourish. RGloucester — ☎ 13:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose The trend pointed out by user:Pagliaccious also exists in the scientific literature. Depending on which journals or taxo databases you look at, "oriental melon" is either being phased out or already has been phased out. (Yes, it's a consequence of how we don't refer to Asian people as "Orientals" anymore. No, it's not exactly the same thing but yes, the association is there and it's icky. Biology tends to be pragmatic about language on all levels and regularly abandons terminology that has become objectionable.) (I'm not a botanist, my specialty is the taxonomy of Lepidoptera, but if you study butterflies you also spend some time here and there reading about the flowering plants they like.) 85.73.162.169 (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- So, we'll ignore all of sources that say 'Oriental melon', including the ones that this article has always been based on, and all those in the book search, none of which are more than ten years old, and just take your word for it? Should we change the name of 'oriental pickling melon'? RGloucester — ☎ 21:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- You don't take my word for it, you check the relevant publications and phylogeny databases. You linked to the ncbi above so you already know they're public.
- Ten years can be a long time when it comes to discriminatory language, just think back to how we were talking about marriage equality or about transgender people in 2008. The number of older sources that say "Oriental" is not an argument if modern sources prefer "Korean" ...which they do. To take a page out of your rhetorical playbook, should we refer to intersex people as "pseudo-hermaphrodites" because the latter term has been around for so long it still vastly outnumbers the former?
- The oriental pickling melon is a cultivar group and not a variety and so is outside of the scope of phylogenetics proper. The authoritative sources on cultivar names are written by marketers and lawyers and not by taxonomists. I claim no expertise there. I wouldn't bet on "Oriental" surviving as a viable synonym for "Korean" in this context either though, certainly not in the long run. 85.73.162.169 (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- A source from 2011 or 2014 is not a 'modern' source? This journal from 2017 is not a 'modern' source? If one does a narrow search of the NCBI, one gets 87 hits for 'oriental melon', with many of the articles having been published in 2017. There are only 6 hits for 'Korean melon'. 2 of those articles use 'oriental melon', with 'Korean' as a variant, one refers to Korean watermelons, and the other three actually refer to the subject of this article (but are older than the ones that use 'oriental melon'). There is no evidence of any 'trend' in literature against 'oriental melon', nor any evidence that the name of this melon is discriminatory. RGloucester — ☎ 01:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- You're doing it wrong. Did you seriously not notice that your google-inspired double-quoting results in ZERO hits for "var. makuwa", which is patently absurd? Did you even try? The trend is there and it's reasonably obvious, especially once you realize that many researchers who no longer want to say "Oriental" don't substitute "Korean" but simply leave out the trivial name altogether. It will be obvious to you too once you've done your homework.
- I didn't, by the way, claim that NO modern source still uses the racial epithet. I said that modern sources PREFER "Korean" over the legacy adjective. If you're going to put words into my mouth, you're going to have to be less clumsy about it.
- I generally admitted that the phaseout is not complete everywhere yet. A word or usage that has become icky can MOSTLY die out in a matter of a few months but can still take decades to die out COMPLETELY. There are embryology papers from basically weeks ago that still use "gender" as a synonym for "sex". The authors aren't gamergaters or anything, they're just a bit older and no longer have the time or the desire to keep up with politically motivated language change in their field. A single example hand-picked from a mishandled search engine proves, in other words, nothing. What matters is the general trend. Learn how to get representative samples and you will see. 85.73.162.169 (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- I really don't understand how an article about a melon has become the source of this political diatribe. My use of inverted commas was correct. See these instructions, particularly the section 'searching for a phrase'. Your search for 'var. makuwa' was confounded by the full stop. There is no evidence that 'oriental' means anything other than 'eastern' in the context of melons...nor any evidence that anyone thinks it is a 'racial epithet' in this context. Korean writers use the name...many of the journal articles linked above were written by Koreans. Again, no evidence of your 'trend' has been put forth. If you have evidence, put it on the table, otherwise I can't help but think that you're a troll of the worst variety. I wish I'd never eaten this confounded fruit...forbidden, forbidden! To know what I know now, I never would've bitten in... RGloucester — ☎ 03:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- A source from 2011 or 2014 is not a 'modern' source? This journal from 2017 is not a 'modern' source? If one does a narrow search of the NCBI, one gets 87 hits for 'oriental melon', with many of the articles having been published in 2017. There are only 6 hits for 'Korean melon'. 2 of those articles use 'oriental melon', with 'Korean' as a variant, one refers to Korean watermelons, and the other three actually refer to the subject of this article (but are older than the ones that use 'oriental melon'). There is no evidence of any 'trend' in literature against 'oriental melon', nor any evidence that the name of this melon is discriminatory. RGloucester — ☎ 01:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose "Korean melon" is the standard name in the CODEX Alimentarius FAO-WHO (See [1]). --Maumivi (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- 'Oriental melon' is also included in the aforementioned document, if you'd care to look. There is no evidence that 'Korean melon' is viewed as a 'standard name' by the relevant organisation, nor does this document suggest such. In any case, what matters is common usage in reliable sources, not one so-called 'standard name'. I've provided numerous examples of the way in which the literature STRONGLY prefers oriental melon...in fact, all of sources this article has been based on refer to oriental melon. Moreover, how 'Korean' is a Korean melon? The well-known golden with white stripes variety, which is so common in Korea now, actually originates from a Japanese variety introduced to Korea in the 1950s. Korean sources document this very well...why are you trying to force the 'Korean' name on a melon that has a shared heritage across East Asia? Why will you not follow the sources in the article, which say 'Oriental melon'? Why will you not look at the above Google books and NCBI searches, where 'oriental' predominates? Why will you not look at the official Korean government agricultural promotion website, where they are once again called 'oriental' melons? This is really infuriating, to be honest. I'm not doing this out of self interest...I simply wanted to replace what was a bare-bones machine-translated rubbish article with something that actually did justice to the topic...and in return, I get all this nonsense...will anyone see sense? Will anyone click on any of the sources in the article and read them? Or should this article have remained a horrible stub? RGloucester — ☎ 15:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- In fact, I did care to look. "Oriental melon" in that document says "See Korean melon" and that's why I linked the article. CODEX Alimentarius FAO-WHO keeps it's list of fruit names, and "Korean melon" was included in 2016. This was a news in many Korean media. (This one is in English.)
- The striped variety of this fruit is also laregely unknown or unfamiliar to many Japanese people. In Japan, striped Korean melons are ofent called chame (チャメ), which is a Japanese transliteration of the Korean word chamoe (참외). This is how a Japanese blog post talks about the fruit:
- "韓国で有名な果物「チャメ 참외 」 A fruit that is famous in Korea "chame (chamoe)"
私も、韓国について10年以上も勉強していたのに I've been studying in Korea for 10 years now.
この果物を知ったのはつい最近です。 But I found out about this fruit only recently.
チャメ 참외って何？ Have you heard of "chame (chamoe)"?
日本には、この果物を見かけることはほとんど In Japan it is hard to encounter this fruit.
ないため、チャメといっても知らない人がほとんどです。 So chame is not known to most people.
韓国では、５月くらいから夏にかけて販売される In Korea it is sold from May throughout summer.
果物で、韓国人が年間平均3.7キロくらい食べると言われる Koreans eat this fruit 3.7kg a year on average.
ほど愛される果物です。 So it's a loved fruit.
- "韓国で有名な果物「チャメ 참외 」 A fruit that is famous in Korea "chame (chamoe)"
- (I did the translation.) --Maumivi (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- Before you translate random blog posts, you might consider reading the Japanese academic sources I linked in the article. Production of oriental melons rapidly declined in Japan after the development of the Prince melon (1962), a hybrid between the oriental melon and a European melon type. It is now exists in Japan more as a regional product, popular in specific areas, like Nara, where Golden Makuwa originated, or Motosu, in Gifu, the location of the former village of Makuwa. So, of course, not all young Japanese will be familiar with it. However, that does not negate the multiple thousands of years it was cultivated in Japan...nor the fact that modern Korean melons descend from a Japanse-bred oriental melon. It IS still cultivated and eaten in Japan...just not on the scale it is in Korea. The sources are in the article, if you care to read them. As for チャメ, this is simply a transliteration used in the context of Korean cuisine...it doesn't imply any of what you're saying.
- 'Oriental melon' is also included in the aforementioned document, if you'd care to look. There is no evidence that 'Korean melon' is viewed as a 'standard name' by the relevant organisation, nor does this document suggest such. In any case, what matters is common usage in reliable sources, not one so-called 'standard name'. I've provided numerous examples of the way in which the literature STRONGLY prefers oriental melon...in fact, all of sources this article has been based on refer to oriental melon. Moreover, how 'Korean' is a Korean melon? The well-known golden with white stripes variety, which is so common in Korea now, actually originates from a Japanese variety introduced to Korea in the 1950s. Korean sources document this very well...why are you trying to force the 'Korean' name on a melon that has a shared heritage across East Asia? Why will you not follow the sources in the article, which say 'Oriental melon'? Why will you not look at the above Google books and NCBI searches, where 'oriental' predominates? Why will you not look at the official Korean government agricultural promotion website, where they are once again called 'oriental' melons? This is really infuriating, to be honest. I'm not doing this out of self interest...I simply wanted to replace what was a bare-bones machine-translated rubbish article with something that actually did justice to the topic...and in return, I get all this nonsense...will anyone see sense? Will anyone click on any of the sources in the article and read them? Or should this article have remained a horrible stub? RGloucester — ☎ 15:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- As for the Codex (again, largely irrelevant in Wikipedia terms), the 'Korean melon' name was included in 2016, but 'oriental melon' had already been included before then, and remains so. See this updated version from 2017, where the 'see Korean melon' business has been removed, along with the inappropriate conflation of 'Korean melon' with 'Oriental pickling melon', a different variety all together. There has been a push by Korean producers to market the 'Korean melon' brand, but again, that is not how we determine article titles here. RGloucester — ☎ 16:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- What on the earth do you think my words are implying? I think you need to calm down. The striped fruit is so uncommon in Japan that people introduce it as Korean fruit and Japanese online markets sell the fruit as "chame" or "kankoku-makuwa" (Korean makuwa). That's all that my words imply. The fruit is predominantly Korean (See the scale of production and consumption that you also mentioned yourself.) and the FAO-WHO did not have the standards and regulations for the fruit's importation/exportation until the Korean government pushed it, because it wanted to export the fruits (which is not the same as "It wanted to export the fruits under this specific name."). That's how "Korean melon" was listed. Seriously, calm yourself down a bit. --Maumivi (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- The fruit is NOT uncommon in Japan. Read the sources linked in the article, which are of academic quality. There are both Japanese and English sources linked that demonstrate its enduring importance in that country. You have presented no sources to support the idea that it is 'predominantly Korean'. It declined in popularity in Japan, yes, it is presently more popular in Korea, yes, Korea is the prime exporter (and even exports most of those to Japan), yes, but that does not make it 'predominantly Korean'. That would be like saying apples are 'primarily Chinese' because China is the biggest producer of apples...it's a plain nonsense. You've provided no sources that support this assertion. The FAO-WHO did have standards for this fruit...it simply classified them with other melons. The Korean government lobbied for a specific (separate) label/category. However, the FAO-WHO does not recognise 'Korean melon' as 'the standard name' or anything like that...'Oriental melon' has equal recognition, as shown in the 2017 edition. I will not 'calm' whilst blatant falsities and unsourced statements are used to discount dozens of reliable sources I spent quite a bit of time collating. RGloucester — ☎ 18:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- I said specifically the the striped variety. Apple isn't an unfamiliar fruit for non-Chinese people, while the striped chamoe is an unfamiliar fruit for many (if not most) Japanese people. And no, FAO-WHO did not have standards and regulations until 2016, which was the reason it was a big news in Korea. "Yay, finally! Now that they have regulations, so we can export our chamoes!" says this English-language article that I mentioned earlier. --Maumivi (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- The striped variety (ginsen/euncheon group of cultivars) was developed in Japan, and common there before it got introduced to Korea. It is not an 'unfamiliar fruit'...in fact, that variety is recognised as a 'traditional vegetable' of Toyama. Again, its popularity may have declined, but that does not make it foreign, nor does remove its links to Japan. There is no source that says it is 'unfamiliar to most Japanese people'. It is a common garden vegetable in Japan, and is considered irreplaceable as an offering during Bon. The sources for those 'facts' are in the article, and you know it. That 'English article' is a very poor machine translation that is incomprehensible, and cannot be used as the basis for anything. The actual documents of the organisation itself specify prior classification. Regardless of that, current classification in that document does not do anything to support the use of 'Korean melon' ('Oriental melon' is also listed) as an article title here.RGloucester — ☎ 19:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm very tired and you win. I can't find an article from a peer-reviewed journal that proves how the fruit is unfamiliar to many (if not most) Japanese people. Another thing I can't prove with sources is that Oriental pickling melon, which is also considered a "traditional vegetable" in Korea (and supported by many reputable sources) and was an important ingredient in Korean royal court cuisine, is now an unfamiliar vegetable to many (if not most) Korean people. But those things are true no matter if I can find an academic article to support them or not. And You can, when you happened to have time and be with a random Japanese person, show the fruit to them and see how they react. I'm done here. Bye! --Maumivi (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- If we're going off anecdotes, I can give you one. Do you know how I first encountered this fruit? Last month, I visited a friend of mine in Japan. Do you know what she offered me? Two kinds of oriental melon (one ginsen, one green kind that I don't know the name of), right from her garden, and perfectly ripe. I hadn't eaten one before. She also had made some nukazuke out of them. And so, I was inducted into the world of the oriental melon. But, that's not how Wikipedia works...we use the names and information used in reliable sources, and that's what bothers me about this debate. I'm very happy that you've added to the article...it could become a 'good article' if we collaborated. To reach that point, however, there must be an emphasis on Wikipedia polices, guidelines, and indeed, on use in reliable sources. That's all I'm asking. RGloucester — ☎ 20:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- I grow Oriental pickling melons myself and my points still stand. I'm an interested individual who grows stuff, and me growing wolgwa can't change the fact that the vegetable is unfamiliar to many Koreans. And again, there's no way I can prove that. So you win again. You can't prove Hami melon is unfamiliar to Koreans, but let me tell you it is. And I grown them too. Korean melons are as common as apples and found in any market in Korea, while you know that is not the case in Japan. These things aren't anecdotal. I have plenty of personal anecdotes but I didn't share it, becaue generality matters. "I have a Japanese friend and she doesn't know what this melon is." is anecdotal, but showing how a random Japanese person introduce the fruit as unfamiliar and foreign to fellow Japanese people is not. Finally, it is hardly a colaboration when one party remove the other's contribution saying it's "pure trivia". Not to mention that a chart illustrating yearly production of the crop is not one of the things WP:TRIVIA deals with. Now I'm really done. It's 5 minutes after midnight where I am. --Maumivi (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- There you go again. Removing the content I added on the commercial production in the US. Now I'm done contributing to the article altogether, not just this discussion. The article is all yours. --Maumivi (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- They are common in Japanese supermarkets in the areas where they are traditionally grown. As I said, they have become more of a regional food, rather than a national one. They also have a lot of regional names, like ajiuri and kanro. Yes, a lot of Japanese will probably not be familiar with them, especially young urbanites and those outside traditional growing areas. If you read the sources in the article, they say that the present commonness of the oriental melon in Japan is largely based on where one lives. At the same time, you can now buy oriental melon ice cream in supermarkets! Regardless, the popularity of a fruit and a given time does not have anything to do with how we title articles. We title articles based on common usage in reliable sources, as shown in all those journal searches I did above. But, that's fine. As for your chart, it was the equivalent of WP:TRIVIA...isolated information without use to the reader. However, turned into WP:PROSE, as I did, and pared down, it becomes useful information. If you want to add information about American production, please find a reliable secondary source.RGloucester — ☎ 21:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- If we're going off anecdotes, I can give you one. Do you know how I first encountered this fruit? Last month, I visited a friend of mine in Japan. Do you know what she offered me? Two kinds of oriental melon (one ginsen, one green kind that I don't know the name of), right from her garden, and perfectly ripe. I hadn't eaten one before. She also had made some nukazuke out of them. And so, I was inducted into the world of the oriental melon. But, that's not how Wikipedia works...we use the names and information used in reliable sources, and that's what bothers me about this debate. I'm very happy that you've added to the article...it could become a 'good article' if we collaborated. To reach that point, however, there must be an emphasis on Wikipedia polices, guidelines, and indeed, on use in reliable sources. That's all I'm asking. RGloucester — ☎ 20:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm very tired and you win. I can't find an article from a peer-reviewed journal that proves how the fruit is unfamiliar to many (if not most) Japanese people. Another thing I can't prove with sources is that Oriental pickling melon, which is also considered a "traditional vegetable" in Korea (and supported by many reputable sources) and was an important ingredient in Korean royal court cuisine, is now an unfamiliar vegetable to many (if not most) Korean people. But those things are true no matter if I can find an academic article to support them or not. And You can, when you happened to have time and be with a random Japanese person, show the fruit to them and see how they react. I'm done here. Bye! --Maumivi (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- The striped variety (ginsen/euncheon group of cultivars) was developed in Japan, and common there before it got introduced to Korea. It is not an 'unfamiliar fruit'...in fact, that variety is recognised as a 'traditional vegetable' of Toyama. Again, its popularity may have declined, but that does not make it foreign, nor does remove its links to Japan. There is no source that says it is 'unfamiliar to most Japanese people'. It is a common garden vegetable in Japan, and is considered irreplaceable as an offering during Bon. The sources for those 'facts' are in the article, and you know it. That 'English article' is a very poor machine translation that is incomprehensible, and cannot be used as the basis for anything. The actual documents of the organisation itself specify prior classification. Regardless of that, current classification in that document does not do anything to support the use of 'Korean melon' ('Oriental melon' is also listed) as an article title here.RGloucester — ☎ 19:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- I said specifically the the striped variety. Apple isn't an unfamiliar fruit for non-Chinese people, while the striped chamoe is an unfamiliar fruit for many (if not most) Japanese people. And no, FAO-WHO did not have standards and regulations until 2016, which was the reason it was a big news in Korea. "Yay, finally! Now that they have regulations, so we can export our chamoes!" says this English-language article that I mentioned earlier. --Maumivi (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- The fruit is NOT uncommon in Japan. Read the sources linked in the article, which are of academic quality. There are both Japanese and English sources linked that demonstrate its enduring importance in that country. You have presented no sources to support the idea that it is 'predominantly Korean'. It declined in popularity in Japan, yes, it is presently more popular in Korea, yes, Korea is the prime exporter (and even exports most of those to Japan), yes, but that does not make it 'predominantly Korean'. That would be like saying apples are 'primarily Chinese' because China is the biggest producer of apples...it's a plain nonsense. You've provided no sources that support this assertion. The FAO-WHO did have standards for this fruit...it simply classified them with other melons. The Korean government lobbied for a specific (separate) label/category. However, the FAO-WHO does not recognise 'Korean melon' as 'the standard name' or anything like that...'Oriental melon' has equal recognition, as shown in the 2017 edition. I will not 'calm' whilst blatant falsities and unsourced statements are used to discount dozens of reliable sources I spent quite a bit of time collating. RGloucester — ☎ 18:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- What on the earth do you think my words are implying? I think you need to calm down. The striped fruit is so uncommon in Japan that people introduce it as Korean fruit and Japanese online markets sell the fruit as "chame" or "kankoku-makuwa" (Korean makuwa). That's all that my words imply. The fruit is predominantly Korean (See the scale of production and consumption that you also mentioned yourself.) and the FAO-WHO did not have the standards and regulations for the fruit's importation/exportation until the Korean government pushed it, because it wanted to export the fruits (which is not the same as "It wanted to export the fruits under this specific name."). That's how "Korean melon" was listed. Seriously, calm yourself down a bit. --Maumivi (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Requested move 20 September 2018
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.
No consensus. Extended discussion has not yielded a consensus on this proposal. bd2412 T 03:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Korean melon → Oriental melon – The common name in reliable sources is 'oriental melon'. RGloucester — ☎ 00:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 19:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Google Books: 'Oriental melon': 1,450 hits v. 'Korean melon': 751
NCBI database: 'Oriental melon': 87 v. 'Korean melon': 6
AGRIS database: 'Oriental melon': 149 v. 'Korean melon' 7
DOAJ database: 'Oriental melon': 9 v. 'Korean melon' 1
PubAg database: 'Oriental melon': 30 v. 'Korean melon' 2
Finally, a regular Google search, though this contains mostly unreliable sources: 'Oriental melon' 62,500 v. 'Korean melon' 50,900
Google Ngrams has no data on this subject.
The common name in reliable, good-quality sources is 'Oriental melon'. In fact, the first version of this article was based on sources that did not even mention the name 'Korean melon'. These are a book by Lim T.K. (seen as DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1764-0_34), a journal article by K. Kato et al., and a book by Kitamura. I have recently expanded this article, having gone through piles of English and Japanese texts...it's clear to me that the present title does not fulfil the criteria set down at WP:AT. Therefore, I propose that this article be moved to the common name, 'Oriental melon'. If for some reason this is unpalatable, I would also accept the scientific name, Cucumis melo var. makuwa, which, whilst less common, is neutral.
P.S. For clarity, the names 'Oriental melon' and 'Korean melon' are both recognised by the Codex Alimentarius. RGloucester — ☎ 00:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Just move to the varietal name Cucumis melo var. makuwa as THAT is the most commonly used name, and avoid the vernacular name problem altogether. This also follows WP:plants and Wp naming guidlines.--Kevmin § 00:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- As I said above, I am also fine with a move to the varietal name. Thank you for informing me about WP:NCFLORA. RGloucester — ☎ 13:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose "Oriental melon" is an ambiguous name as melons in the groups Cucumis melo var. chinensis, Cucumis melo var. acidulus, and others are also called "Oriental melon". (See statements like "Principle component analysis (PCA) revealed that Cucumis melo var. acidulus and Cucumis melo var. makuwa, both of which belong to the oriental melon were closely related,") I also oppose the move to Cucumis melo var. makuwa as 'makuwa' as well as 'chinensis' and 'acidulus' is not a variety (in a botanical sence) but rather a group. I wouldn't strongly oppose a move to Cucumis melo Gp. makuwa but using the "Gp." epithet in the title seems unprecedented. Oriental sweet melon is another unambiguous name (used as oppose to other Oriental melons, such as Oriental pickling melon) that is used in several sources (like this one) but then, this name is not nearly as common as Korean melon. --Gomuragi (talk) 12:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- 'Oriental melon' alone is never used to refer to the Oriental pickling melon (which is why it is called that), and I have seen no evidence that chinensis and acidulus are referred to as 'oriental melon'. A random PHD dissertation is not a reliable source for that statement, which is made nowhere else. All the documents I listed above refer to this melon. The Codex, as well, is specific about what an oriental melon is, and this is it. The 'oriental sweet melon' name is used sometimes, but is rare. There can be no prohibition of the name Cucumis melo var. makuwa, when that name is commonly used in reliable sources, whereas 'Cucumis melo Gp. makuwa' does not appear once (no results found). 'var. Makuwa' is also listed as the correct name in UniProt and the NCBI. Your opposition seems like a lot of WP:OR. RGloucester — ☎ 15:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Not a variety according to "Oriental melon/Archive 1". Germplasm Resources Information Network. Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. or "Oriental melon/Archive 1". World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew – via The Plant List. Note that this website has been superseded by World Flora Online. It's a synonym, thus not a variety in a botanical sense, thus considered a cultivar group. 'Makuwa' is a group according to numerous sources including these ones specifying Cucumis melo L. (Makuwa Group) Cucumis melo (Makuwa Group), C. melo ssp. agrestis group makuwa, Makuwa Group, Melons in the makuwa group belong to the subspecies agrestis. Perhaps you could be more attentive before linking WP:OR. --Gomuragi (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- The question of whether it is a 'variety' in some sort of narrow botanical sense does not matter. I never said anything about it being a 'variety'. I said that it is commonly called 'Cucumis melo var. makuwa'. What matters is what it is called in RS, and it is called 'Cucumis melo var. makuwa' in RS, including in the sources you linked, and indeed, in the ones this article is based on. All of the sources you just linked reference 'Cucumis melo var. makuwa'. It is the commonly used scientific NAME for this plant, regardless of questions about what a variety is (which are not appropriately discussed here). I find it funny you pipe your links with the name 'Korean melon', when that name does not appear in the linked material... RGloucester — ☎ 17:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- "var." is a scientific abbreviation for a taxonomic rank (variety), and that isn't how taxonomic nomenclature works. A scientific name isn't decided based on common usage. "Porphyra tenera" still seems to be a more popular (commonly used) scientific name but "Pyropia tenera" is currently the accepted name. The same case here. "C. melo var. makuwa" was once considered a variety, but it in't now. Thus the name "C. melo var. makuwa" becomes a synonym of "C. melo", while the cultivated varieties that the name used to refer to can still be grouped as a cultivar group. --Gomuragi (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm perfectly aware. But, whether something is accepted as a name in some official manner or not doesn't matter. We don't go by WP:OFFICIALNAME. We go by WP:COMMONNAMEs. More importantly, in this case, we'd use WP:NDESC. Take a look at all of the searches I linked above. ALL current and past journals on this plant use the name "C. melo var. makuwa". For that reason, and for our purposes in giving this plant a neutral name, there is no reason why we cannot use the common scientific form of the name, which is "C. melo var. makuwa". If it is commonly used in reliable sources, which it is, by all reliable sources, both those that use oriental melon and Korean melon, then we can use it too. And, if you are so very opposed to that, we can use 'Oriental melon', the true common name in RS. RGloucester — ☎ 13:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- The incorrect (dated, unaccepted) scientific name leads readers to misconception. If the title becomes "Cucumis melo var. makuwa", the fruit plant can easily be percieved as a variety, which it isn't. --Gomuragi (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- It isn't 'dated'. It is used now. Look at any of the journal searches above and they are filled with 2017 and 2018 references to 'oriental melon' and 'C. melo. var. makuwa'. The definition of a 'variety' depends on context, which I'm sure you know. The strict botanical definition is not the only one. If RS use it, it's good enough for us per WP:V. The present title promotes the misconception that this is a 'Korean' melon, but I don't see you saying anything about that. At the moment, it seems like you're stonewalling, and opposed to any form of compromise. The present title is wrong, not the most common in RS, and non-neutral. It fails our WP:AT title criteria. If you want to use an uncommon neutral name to adhere to some sort of strange principle of WP:OFFICIALNAME, do you accept Cucumis melo Makuwa Group? Even though this name seems out of kilter with WP:NCFLORA, it might pass WP:NDESC. NCFLORA only says that 'The name of a Group (formerly cultivar group), following the requirements of the ICNCP, is capitalized and not italicized, and includes the word Group e.g., Cynara cardunculus Scolymus Group'. Perhaps this means we can use it? RGloucester — ☎ 19:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- The incorrect (dated, unaccepted) scientific name leads readers to misconception. If the title becomes "Cucumis melo var. makuwa", the fruit plant can easily be percieved as a variety, which it isn't. --Gomuragi (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm perfectly aware. But, whether something is accepted as a name in some official manner or not doesn't matter. We don't go by WP:OFFICIALNAME. We go by WP:COMMONNAMEs. More importantly, in this case, we'd use WP:NDESC. Take a look at all of the searches I linked above. ALL current and past journals on this plant use the name "C. melo var. makuwa". For that reason, and for our purposes in giving this plant a neutral name, there is no reason why we cannot use the common scientific form of the name, which is "C. melo var. makuwa". If it is commonly used in reliable sources, which it is, by all reliable sources, both those that use oriental melon and Korean melon, then we can use it too. And, if you are so very opposed to that, we can use 'Oriental melon', the true common name in RS. RGloucester — ☎ 13:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- "var." is a scientific abbreviation for a taxonomic rank (variety), and that isn't how taxonomic nomenclature works. A scientific name isn't decided based on common usage. "Porphyra tenera" still seems to be a more popular (commonly used) scientific name but "Pyropia tenera" is currently the accepted name. The same case here. "C. melo var. makuwa" was once considered a variety, but it in't now. Thus the name "C. melo var. makuwa" becomes a synonym of "C. melo", while the cultivated varieties that the name used to refer to can still be grouped as a cultivar group. --Gomuragi (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- The question of whether it is a 'variety' in some sort of narrow botanical sense does not matter. I never said anything about it being a 'variety'. I said that it is commonly called 'Cucumis melo var. makuwa'. What matters is what it is called in RS, and it is called 'Cucumis melo var. makuwa' in RS, including in the sources you linked, and indeed, in the ones this article is based on. All of the sources you just linked reference 'Cucumis melo var. makuwa'. It is the commonly used scientific NAME for this plant, regardless of questions about what a variety is (which are not appropriately discussed here). I find it funny you pipe your links with the name 'Korean melon', when that name does not appear in the linked material... RGloucester — ☎ 17:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Not a variety according to "Oriental melon/Archive 1". Germplasm Resources Information Network. Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. or "Oriental melon/Archive 1". World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew – via The Plant List. Note that this website has been superseded by World Flora Online. It's a synonym, thus not a variety in a botanical sense, thus considered a cultivar group. 'Makuwa' is a group according to numerous sources including these ones specifying Cucumis melo L. (Makuwa Group) Cucumis melo (Makuwa Group), C. melo ssp. agrestis group makuwa, Makuwa Group, Melons in the makuwa group belong to the subspecies agrestis. Perhaps you could be more attentive before linking WP:OR. --Gomuragi (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- 'Oriental melon' alone is never used to refer to the Oriental pickling melon (which is why it is called that), and I have seen no evidence that chinensis and acidulus are referred to as 'oriental melon'. A random PHD dissertation is not a reliable source for that statement, which is made nowhere else. All the documents I listed above refer to this melon. The Codex, as well, is specific about what an oriental melon is, and this is it. The 'oriental sweet melon' name is used sometimes, but is rare. There can be no prohibition of the name Cucumis melo var. makuwa, when that name is commonly used in reliable sources, whereas 'Cucumis melo Gp. makuwa' does not appear once (no results found). 'var. Makuwa' is also listed as the correct name in UniProt and the NCBI. Your opposition seems like a lot of WP:OR. RGloucester — ☎ 15:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@Kevmin: - Your opinion, as you're familiar with WP:NCFLORA? RGloucester — ☎ 13:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support as proposed. Move to oriental melon. RGloucester has presented a convincing case that the name refers in the literature almost exclusively to this variety, and that the name is more common than the Korean melon name. Oppose using the scientific varietal name because it's a mouthful, is not WP:RECOGNIZEable to people unfamiliar with the subject, and is not the common name. — Amakuru (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support per well-researched and convincing nomination. — AjaxSmack 01:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Is this any different from the proposal that was just withdrawn the day before? Why the repeat? —BarrelProof (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I withdrew it because my proposal was flawed, and relaunched it as soon as I was able to write a more well-reasoned proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 00:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. The move request originally dates to September 14. It was opposed by 3 different commenters for 3 different reasons. Proposer got rid of these commenters by first retracting, then reinstating the request. 73 minutes passed between retraction and reinstatement so these are not legitimately separate discussions. Proposer did not notify any of the editors whose comments he flushed down the toilet, even though proposer did have the time to go to other editor's talk pages in the matter. How is this sort of thing permissible?
- On the substance of the matter, proposer claims that "the names 'Oriental melon' and 'Korean melon' are both recognised by the Codex Alimentarius". This is not an accurate representation of what the Codex does. The Codex makes it clear that it considers 'Korean melon' the regular name, 'Oriental melon' a lesser alternative: 'Korean melon' has a definition ("Hybrid cultivars of Cucumis melo L. subsp. agrestis (Naudin) Pangalo"), 'Oriental melon' only rates a "see also". It's not a "well-researched and convincing nomination" to me if the one item a layperson can independently evaluate is none-too-subtly questionable. How can we be sure the other items don't have similar problems? An actual plant biologist with proven credentials should weigh in on this before action is taken. Damvile (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I a wrote a new proposal based only on the title criteria, to avoid a continuation of the trolling that was taking place in the previous discussion. Specifically, I was targeted by a mad Gamergate IP...as often happens. Both of the other users have watched this page, if they care to comment. First of all, we don't base article naming on 'official' sources...but the Codex says nothing about 'Korean melon' being a 'regular name'. Both Korean and Oriental melon are listed in the most recent version, and both are simply sub-categories of 'VC 0046'. The only reason I included this point at all is because another editor said the Codex's usage could affect ours. I personally disagree, but that's irrelevant. The Codex does not in anyway favour one title over the other, and that's the only reason I put it here. Please don't cause trouble...the evidence above shows clearly that the common name is 'Oriental melon'...if you don't like that, take Cucumis melo Makuwa Group. But please, please...get rid of this horrible title, which is not the common name, and which non-neutral with regard to the nature of said fruit. RGloucester — ☎ 14:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I promise I'm not here to cause trouble, but... why do you think this was "a mad Gamergate IP"? Why would Gamergoobers have any problem with this move? Seeing how the move was opposed partially for political correctness reasons in the threads you removed, would a Gamergater not reflexively support it? How do you mean they "target" you and this happens "often"? I don't see any obvious trolling in that thread, to be honest I see you being wrong about a search form. (The full stop can't be the reason your search didn't work because it also appears in the IP's search, which does work.) My apologies if there is some history between you and Gamergatery I'm not aware of, but even if there is, do you really get to make the decision to delete the thread yourself? I've honestly never seen this done before. Not saying the IP is correct (Not a scientist, no way of knowing!) but the points it raises don't look patently crazy to me. The decision to delete them should have been left to someone neutral and uninvolved. Damvile (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Damville...? I really don't understand what you're going on about here. My search didn't back then have a full stop, it was the IP's that did, and it returned zero results despite the phrase appearing many times in the actual database. As for me, I am targeted by crazed Gamergate IPs because of past absurdities that you can research on your own. This 'renaming' has nothing to do with political correctness...just the WP:AT criteria. I did not 'delete' anything. I simply realised that my original proposal was flawed, and not up to the standard required. I wrote a new proposal with pure data...that's all. I realise that the only reason you're here at all is to cause me trouble, as I interfered in your Austrian-articles territory. If you have any kind of humanity, you'll stop that and view the proposal as a neutral observer, and support it for the sake of the encylopaedia, because as of now this is an absurdity. Next time, though, I won't waste my time translating sources and improving a stub that was mostly machine-translated...I'll just leave it to rot so as to avoid this nonsense. RGloucester — ☎ 15:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- I promise I'm not here to cause trouble, but... why do you think this was "a mad Gamergate IP"? Why would Gamergoobers have any problem with this move? Seeing how the move was opposed partially for political correctness reasons in the threads you removed, would a Gamergater not reflexively support it? How do you mean they "target" you and this happens "often"? I don't see any obvious trolling in that thread, to be honest I see you being wrong about a search form. (The full stop can't be the reason your search didn't work because it also appears in the IP's search, which does work.) My apologies if there is some history between you and Gamergatery I'm not aware of, but even if there is, do you really get to make the decision to delete the thread yourself? I've honestly never seen this done before. Not saying the IP is correct (Not a scientist, no way of knowing!) but the points it raises don't look patently crazy to me. The decision to delete them should have been left to someone neutral and uninvolved. Damvile (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- I a wrote a new proposal based only on the title criteria, to avoid a continuation of the trolling that was taking place in the previous discussion. Specifically, I was targeted by a mad Gamergate IP...as often happens. Both of the other users have watched this page, if they care to comment. First of all, we don't base article naming on 'official' sources...but the Codex says nothing about 'Korean melon' being a 'regular name'. Both Korean and Oriental melon are listed in the most recent version, and both are simply sub-categories of 'VC 0046'. The only reason I included this point at all is because another editor said the Codex's usage could affect ours. I personally disagree, but that's irrelevant. The Codex does not in anyway favour one title over the other, and that's the only reason I put it here. Please don't cause trouble...the evidence above shows clearly that the common name is 'Oriental melon'...if you don't like that, take Cucumis melo Makuwa Group. But please, please...get rid of this horrible title, which is not the common name, and which non-neutral with regard to the nature of said fruit. RGloucester — ☎ 14:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.