Talk:Apple

Contradictory Statement
It is stated apple seeds were found in Italy in c. 4000 BCE and also that apples arrived in Europe via the Silk Road.

However, in the Silk Road article, it is said to have existed only since 2000 BCE.

Perhaps it would make sense to add a "citation needed"? I am unsure how to proceed. Eh23233 (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Eh23233, hmm, fair question! My thought is that the silk road statement doesn't mean that there couldn't have been other trading paths coming from east Asia over to Italy/Europe. My guess is that the apples found at the Italian site would be traced to some different source, rather than the Silk Road, but that the Silk Road is what more commonly brought apples to Europe, or popularized them. Since both statements are sourced and they aren't in direct conflict, I think we can leave it for now. Alyo  (chat·edits) 13:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ah yes, on re-reading it i can see how i got confused - they found maybe domesticated apples but they're not sure and i guess if they are then no-one knows how they got there (:
 * thank you for the response! <3 Eh23233 (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2024
217.34.48.59 (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC) apples are a very popular fruit
 * They are indeed. If you have any specific sourced text to add to Apple, please insert it below so that it can be added to the article, and edit the template above to read answered=no. Certes (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2024

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

A previous closure of this discussion was by User:Drmies:


 * Closed per SNOW, and because the editor who started it is a CU-blocked troll. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I re-closed with different templates in hope that the move bot would handle it correctly. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

– Heya, I have serval reasons arguing that there is no primary topic, let’s get into it. We’re gonna abide by WP:PTOPIC, which reads as follows: 1. A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. As evident by [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2020-03-22&end=2024-04-21&pages=Apple%7CApple_Inc. page view statistics], strong popularity and usage of iPhone services and products, the trillion-dollar company is the most likely topic that Wikipedia readers will look for. But wait, there also exists the second point: 2. A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. Apples have huge symbolism in historical mythology, human consumption, and cultural influence. In contemporary times, both the corporation and the fruit are widely recognized and significant. I say neither of these topics deserves merit as a primary one, who's with me? DS537(WIR) 21:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Apple → Apple (fruit)
 * Apple (disambiguation) → Apple

Please note: Before more editors provide their thoughts on this move request, I strongly encourage people to thoroughly WP:READ the RM proposal itself before making any comments. This has to be clarified because although there is substantial consensus that the fruit has more long-term significance than the company (which I agree with), many opposition arguments are based solely upon that claim. Thank you. DS537(WIR) 21:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The long-term significance of the fruit is obvious and overwhelming. I very strongly disagree with the suggestion that the corporation and the fruit are equally important. Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support the fruit is primary by long-term significance but the company is primary by usage and the company is well known and has been around for a while so its not like it doesn't also have a bit of long-term significance (its a level 4 vital article like the fruit) and there are several other uses.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: sorry, but no. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @YorkshireExpat I would rather you explain why you oppose rather than apologize… DS537(WIR) 21:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Per Egsan Bacon. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Their opposition isn’t clear either. DS537(WIR) 18:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Per anyone else that Opposed this. Take your pick. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Voting isn’t part of the RM process, please see WP:PERX. DS537(WIR) 19:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:SATISFY YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:IDHT DS537(WIR) 20:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:TLW YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yo @YorkshireExpat, I saw we stop this; I mean I now understand your reasoning for the opposition, and I hope you understand my doubts regarding your comment. What if we both just let it go instead of throwing more WP shortcuts at one another? Hope we can agree on something. DS537(WIR) 21:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Aww, was having fun. This is what happens when two Wikibadgers start at each other. Also, it's defintely possible to change my mind. Not here though. I think the long term significance argument is too strong and the differential is not enough given other discussions I've seen. Separatley, I find the WP:ASTONISH argument compelling. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The fruit is clearly the primary topic. J I P  &#124; Talk 22:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @JIP Why? DS537(WIR) 12:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Apples are pretty much all around. They probably predate humanity and will outlive it. The word "apple" was invented for the fruit. Pretty much every other entry at J I P  &#124; Talk 17:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Personally I agree with the rationale and think the move would be in readers' interests, but there was no consensus to move when a similar suggestion was made 18 months ago and it is not clear what has changed since. Certes (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello Certes, that RM proposed to move Apple Inc. to Apple, I think this one could have a different outcome. DS537(WIR) 22:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It was a wide-ranging and slightly confused debate. I'm reading the brief closing statement as "don't make the company primary", which I think we both agree with, but there didn't seem to be consensus for this move either.  Thank you for starting a more focussed discussion which may overturn that result. Certes (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Certes I think it's still unlikely, because this is a corner-case where a lot of people recognize the long-term significance. If we couldn't move something as relatively much more obscure like Maus, based on usage, it stands to reason that we're not going to move apple. --Joy (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The company is naturally disambiguated and linked at the beginning of the hatnote. The company is an important encyclopedia topic, but the fruit has greater long-term significance, and pageviews for tech-related topics are known to be inflated relative to importance in society overall. The change would not benefit users. Dekimasu よ! 03:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * While disambiguation is important, the term “Apple” without further context is commonly associated with the company. Placing the company name in the hatnote does not negate its notability status. DS537(WIR) 15:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This is a classical example of ambiguity by usage: WikiNav for "Apple" for March '24 shows ~3.4k clickstreams to the company over a total traffic of ~80k, and that 4% or 1/25 is indeed indicative of an issue with navigation from the point of view of reader usage; at the same time WikiNav for "Apple Inc." says there were ~420k incoming views there, which reinforces the former hint. The possibility that in a mass of so many requests there's comparable interest in the fruit and the company/brand is perfectly plausible.
 * Nevertheless, apple became such a generic, basic English word because it refers to one of the most fundamentally conventional fruits in a lot of the English-speaking world, its long-term significance is not actually comparable with the brand, even if it's a world-wide popular company/brand - it is practically novelty in comparison. So, this is one of the few places where even if we know that we're short-circuiting in a way that leaves a substantial part of readers dependent on search engine short-circuiting logic rather than our navigation - it's probably just fine.
 * Ultimately, it's hard to say that anybody's astonished by reading about the fruit at "apple" and having to click again for the company/brand. (Oppose) --Joy (talk) 08:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Again, like I stated in the previous RM discussions, I prefer to error on the side of the long-term significance aspect under WP:PTOPIC. The fruit has substantially greater and long-term enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. There are millennia of long-term significance of the fruit, as described on such articles and sections like Apple, Apple, and Apple (symbolism). Because of the fruit, we have scientific and technological influences like the Isaac Newton apple incident. Or centuries-old tropes and motifs like "shooting an apple off one's child's head" or the golden apple. Apple Inc. was only founded in 1976 -- only about 48 years old compared to over thousands of generations of human experience and influences with the fruit. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And yet the company garners numerous notability on Wikipedia: its time to let the two topics disambiguate. DS537(WIR) 15:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And what also garners numerous notability on Wikipedia? Pop culture, memes, tech, and video games. And Wikipedia continues to lose credibility when it favors those while downplaying those topics that are centuries old, vital core, academic and scientific. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Last rebuttal: This dab is not a downplay, but a balance of equally significant and relevant topics. Please see WP:ABOUT - Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by presenting information on all branches of knowledge. and WP:ARTN - Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. DS537(WIR) 21:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The fruit has been in human history for thousands of years. Apple Inc is not even fifty and the company got its name from the fruit. To say there is no primary topic is satire. Neocorelight (Talk) 10:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Neocorelight The age of a topic doesn’t solely determine its primary status. While the fruit has a long history, the term “Apple” has evolved in modern usage to primarily refer to the company. Its impact on technology makes it the more sought-after topic for the term “Apple” in contemporary contexts. I would appreciate it if you took this RM more seriously. DS537(WIR) 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Evolved? This argument sounds like it's from a narrow viewpoint focusing on the company popularity instead of the wider collective human knowledge. Neocorelight (Talk) 14:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The proposal is for Apple to be a disambiguation page but based on this reply, your real intent is to push the company to occupy that title. Neocorelight (Talk) 14:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies for miscommunication (if any), but my genuine intent is to title the disambiguation page. I stated my rebuttal as a comment that the company has notability and usage significance, while your statement of long term significance is also valid. Both can coexist by being equally relevant and significant. DS537(WIR) 15:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not just this reply but also the reply to Dekimasu above. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How so? I’m just stating that Apple is more associated with the company, not at all requesting that Apple Inc be changed to the base. DS537(WIR) 12:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Clear primary topic by long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Clear no primary topic by primary usage. DS537(WIR) 12:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because many people already know what apple is. Neocorelight (Talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that’s exactly my point. DS537(WIR) 15:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, that means people searching or googling things related to the company in this digital age and space is only natural. Not a proof of it being primary topic. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * One last rebuttal: yeah, it’s natural because it is notable; I’m not claiming it’s primary but that it’s equal to the fruit. DS537(WIR) 02:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose this one of the cases called out explicitly, and I think would count even if this wasn't the example, by the guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC where we consensus maybe be needed instead of the other two arms of deciding the primary topic: consensus may be useful in determining which topic, if any, is the primary topic. I think given PT1 and PT2 are in conflict, I think the arguments of long term significance, lack of surprise, and obviousness argues for the fruit to remain at the base name instead of the dismabiguation page. Skynxnex (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Having a primary topic is better than forcing everyone to a dab page. Of course, the simple solution would be to move the fruit page to "Apples" and place the company at the base name, but that's probably not going to happen. Jessintime (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If the move did go through, could redirect to Apple (fruit), just as  redirects to Orange (fruit) despite the existence of Orange (colour), etc. Certes (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes that would make sense per WP:PLURALPT as the plural is much less ambiguous.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Longterm significance criterion for a fruit that has existed for millennia and is a key part of human culture and religion takes precedence over a modern company that makes plastic phones. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per long-term historical significance (well explained in above comments). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, classic NOPRIMARY case. Yes, the fruit has long-term significance. But the company has much more present day significance as one of the largest companies on the planet, and at some point amongst the largest of all time. I get what everyone is trying to say, but there's no primary topic as of today.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - quite literally a text book example of a primary-topic by long-term significance. The hatnote at the top of the article is sufficient for any confusion (which, based on clickstream, is incredibly rare ). Also the usage of Apple and Apple Inc. is an absolutely perfect example of WP:NATURAL disambiguation. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The fruit is clearly primary by long-term significance alone, but WP:Primary topic also considers usage. Apple Inc. is absolutely the right title for the company article, but that has no bearing on whether the fruit is primary.  Gap Inc., HP Inc., MCI Inc. and many others are naturally disambiguated, but Gap, HP and MCI are still dabs because those terms have no primary topic. Certes (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's most likely because in those cases there's no single topic with relevant significance. --Joy (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes: the dab goes at the base name if and only if there is no primary topic, regardless of whether an article about a company of that name is titled using natural disambiguation. Certes (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PT2 and the principle of least astonishment. Graham (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per nom.  thetechie@enwiki  :  ~/talk/  $  17:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose: Long term importance favors the fruit, and the official name of the company is Apple Inc. as seen on their copyright. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk)  19:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Obvious WP:PTOPIC. This isn't like Orange (color) and Orange (fruit) ... this is a fruit versus a company whose name is taken after the fruit. Not the same at all. Steel1943  (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I do think that while normally, this would be a win, I think this is the exception because apple (the fruit) came before Apple (the famous company) hence long term significance. Likewise, even though I rarely hear National Football League or Central Intelligence Agency, I still prefer that title, rather its abbreviation/acronym. I could also argue that Boston should be the primary topic for the one in Lincolnshire, UK but it is alright as it is even though the US city was named after the UK one. JuniperChill (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2024
I want to say it fits well in the mouth Andrew.pearse22 (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ You don't offer a reliable source for your claim. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2024
66.110.246.199 (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

GA concerns
After reviewing this article, I am concerned that it does not meet the GA criteria anymore. Some of my concerns are listed below:


 * An image gallery is generally frowned upon, per WP:GALLERY, and the multiple images in "Cultivars" should be trimmed down.
 * There are many undeveloped sections, including "Phytochemicals", "Other products", "Research", "Nutrition", "Production", and "Distribution and habitat". This makes me believe that the article is not complete.
 * There are many uncited sentences and paragraphs.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? If not, should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Concerning the Production and Nutrition sections, there is nothing more to say from the sources provided, which are the most authoritative available (UN and USDA, respectively).
 * For the Phytochemicals and Research sections, there are numerous primary research publications and some low-quality reviews, but it's evident from the discussions in these papers that the content is misleading with exaggerations of health benefits, such as "important antioxidant properties" and "promising therapeutic agents against human diseases", and "apple products have protective effects against cardiovascular diseases, cancer, etc.. There is no good scientific evidence in the clinical research literature, and therefore no WP:MEDRS sources that support such claims. Zefr (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Very much agree that the article looks nothing like the last time(s) it went through any GA review, and another is now due. Alyo  (chat·edits) 14:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed a couple of unacceptable medical-related claims. I agree the article needs re-reviewing. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)