Talk:Broccolini

Vitamin A, GE status, Nutrition
according to it does contain vitamin A.  a fair bit, in fact. I added the link to the page for those who want to verify the info somewhere else. I also pointed out that this is apparently a natural (non GM) hybrid. I used one and the same source for both of these things, someone may want to verify it elsewhere. driggers 04:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

um. okay. Allthewhile 01:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * GE status

I added conflicting sources. A third source is http://broccoli.com/broccolini.html which asserts the product is not GE (not genetically engineered). While direct bold-faced lies on websites by product manufacturers are not the rule, I do not consider this a definitive answer; a reputable organic group stating that broccolini is non-GE, and a government website stating it is not GE, would be stronger evidence that broccolini is not GE. Hopefully this can be settled one way or the other, soon. --Harel (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nutrition

I think the nutritional content of broccolini needs a slight alteration. As is, it is misleading because broccolini does not contain vitamin A as true vitamin A is only found in animal fats. What broccolini would have is carotenes.


 * There is no such thing as "true" vitamin A. Vitamin A is a collection of related biochemical compounds, as are many other vitamins. --EncycloPetey 22:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Natural hybrid
What does this mean? Could definition be included in article. Or Wikilink? Piano non troppo (talk) 10:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the term is meant to indicate "produced by selective breeding". I have modified the intro so it no longer includes the term, which I agree is confusing. 138.16.21.199 (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

japanise meaning
hey there. just reading this article and i noticed you give the original japanise name but not what it means. its ブロッコリーニ or burokkulii 2 the number 2 is read as ni. ... but basicly the name means brockley 2.0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:363D:9200:7151:D667:FB49:CFF0 (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This would be fun to include in the article. Maybe a Japanese speaker can find a source mentioning it? – Þjarkur (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The translation "brockley 2.0" is amusing, but not correct. The Japanese Katakana ブロッコリーニ would be pronounced (roughly) burokkuriini, not burokkulii 2. The katakana ニ, pronounced "ni", is identical to the kanji ニ, meaning the number 2. But in context it is clearly intended to be "ni", not "2". I am not a native speaker, but it's easy to check in katakana. --Krivak957 (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Tenderstem?
Is this the stuff sold in the UK as "tenderstem?" &#39;&#39;Paul, in Saudi&#39;&#39; (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * @PaulinSaudi Yes, it's mentioned at the end. Given this is how it is commonly known in the UK it should probably be in the lede. ed g2s &bull; talk 17:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. PaulinSaudi (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 28 March 2019

 * 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 section. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. Consensus is that broccolini is not (literally) baby (young) broccoli (it's an "adult" hybrid of broccoli and kale) and it's fine to use trademarked names as article  titles if they meet normal title criteria like common name. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 22:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Broccolini → Baby broccoli – The word Broccolini is a trademark not a generic name. The generic name of the vegetable is "baby broccoli". It is improper to use a trademark as the generic name for the product. The trademark Broccolini is protected by U.S. Reg. No. 2365625  MWMDL (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC) |talk=yes
 * It would be baby broccoli then, please fix B in template. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Noting that the nom is making first edits to the project and may have COI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MWMDL In ictu oculi (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It sure looks like broccolini is fairly well known as a generic name. Not opposed to moving, though. – Þjarkur (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Leaning to oppose: What it is: Broccolini looks like baby broccoli and is sold in bunches. It’s a cross between Chinese kale and broccoli, Produce Picks: Broccolini is not baby broccoli, people In ictu oculi (talk) 07:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Bulleted list item This is not baby broccoli, baby vegetables normally imply that the vegetable is harvested at a young, or immature stage, so if you were terming this baby broccoli, it would be a normal calabrese type broccoli, harvested at a much earlier cycle. The correct grouping for this product should be "sprouting broccoli" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuels Dave (talk • contribs) 15:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Baby broccoli is the common generic industry name for the branded product Broccolini. If you look at other producers, they call the product "baby broccoli" and there is no suggestion that "baby broccoli" means a young vegetable. For example, baby carrots are not young carrots. They are genetically engineered carrots that are smaller in size, but are full grown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MWMDL (talk • contribs) 15:34, 29 March 2019 (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.

Requested move 5 April 2019

 * 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 section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is consensus not to move, while consensus can change, I would advise anybody considering a speedy renomination to ensure the argument isn't based on the arguments of the previous two discussions. (closed by non-admin page mover)  SITH   (talk)   12:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Broccolini → Baby broccoli – This is a request move from amending the current article title for Broccolini to the general industry term for the vegetable/product, which is Baby Broccoli. This request does not concern whether the industry name given to “baby broccoli” makes actual sense. Instead, this request concerns the precision of the article name when readers view the page. In support of the move, I have provided links showing direct evidence that vegetable producers and average consumers alike refer to the vegetable as baby broccoli and not by the trademarked name Broccolini. MWMDL (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. B dash (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

1. Manufacturers/Vegetable Producers call the product baby broccoli. See links below.


 * Foxy Organic - https://www.foxy.com/what-we-grow/sweet-baby-broccoli
 * Lakeside Organic Gardens - http://www.lakesideorganic.com/vegetables/sweet-baby-broccoli/
 * Markon - https://www.markon.com/produce-guide/broccoli-baby-sweet-mfc
 * Ocean Mist - https://www.oceanmist.com/products/sweet-baby-broccoli
 * Green Giant Fresh - https://www.greengiantfresh.com/products/sweet-baby-broccoli-pouch/
 * Josie's Organics- https://josiesorganics.com/whole-vegetables/sweet-baby-broccoli/
 * Bulmer Farms- http://bulmerfarms.com.au/baby-broccoli/
 * Rugby Farms- https://www.rugbyfarm.com.au/produce/view/baby-broccoli/1

As you can see, major vegetable producers in the industry refer to the product as baby broccoli. They do not refer to their products as Broccolini.

2. Ordinary users call the product "baby broccoli". See links below.


 * Martha Stewart Recipe - https://www.marthastewart.com/329040/sauteed-baby-broccoli
 * Primal Palate Recipe- https://www.primalpalate.com/paleo-recipe/roasted-baby-broccoli/
 * Williams Sonoma Recipe - https://www.williams-sonoma.com/recipe/baby-broccoli-with-garlic.html
 * Food Network recipe- https://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/food-network-kitchen/baby-broccoli-with-oyster-sauce-recipe-2104091
 * Betty Crocker Recipe- https://www.bettycrocker.com/recipes/garlic-baby-broccoli/a8dfad0c-6067-46b9-ae02-4b5823d59bd1
 * New York Times- https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1012936-fettuccine-with-braised-mushrooms-and-baby-broccoli

Again, please note that average people also refer to the product e.g., in recipes as baby broccoli and not by the trademark Broccolini.

3. (A) As mentioned above, Broccolini is a registered trademark. See link http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=%0975446875&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch.

(B) Upon reviewing the Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Trademarks, General rules section, the Manual states that trademarks should be accompanied by what the generic name for the product is. See Wikipedia rules-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks.

Excerpt from Wikipedia Manual: Don't expect readers to know, based on trademarks or brand names, what item is being discussed. For example:

use: Police in Miami confiscated 25 stolen Rolex watches.

avoid: Police in Miami confiscated 25 stolen Rolexes.

Therefore, since “Broccolini” is a registered trademark like “Rolex,” the Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Trademarks indicates use of the term “Broccolini” by itself should be avoided. Accordingly, the article title should be changed to “Broccolini baby broccoli” and every instance within the article should be changed to “Broccolini baby broccoli.” This is correct usage per the Manual and per trademark practice. However, this technically correct usage seems awkward and may not reflect everyday usage. But “Broccolini” does not reflect everyday usage either as shown by the evidence provided. Ultimately, it seems better to revise the article title to “Baby broccoli,” and the instances within the article can be referred to by the appropriate generic name, i.e., “baby broccoli.”  In this way the article title and the instances in the article will reflect both proper usage in accordance with the Manual of Style and with common usage as demonstrated by evidence. The article can identify “Broccolini” as one of the many trademarks used for baby broccoli.

Survey

 * Oppose we've only just been here. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I encouraged them to try anew with arguments supporting the move based on COMMONNAME rather than "correctness" since they produced such evidence on my talk page (and which they've since produced in the nom). I'm not sure if these examples are cherry-picked as I'm personally familiar only with the broccolini usage, but I think it's worth looking into. --В²C ☎ 22:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. Too soon. No good reason for a speedy renomination. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The nomination is not any better this time, it is just another grab at a preference. The nomination has picked many examples of one term, ignored examples of the other, and has made no attempt to quantify or comment on trends in usage. The two terms are synonyms, “broccolini” literally (linguistic construction) means “baby broccoli”.  Speedy close due to being too soon after the same failed proposal with no substantial difference.  Oppose due to lack of evidence that the proposed is better than the current, per WP:TITLECHANGES. Also knee jerk cynicism of new redlinked accounts engaging tendenditoiusly in the RM process. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a new account of a person obviously unfamiliar with our processes and policies. I think it would be appropriate for us to be understanding and give them some slack. That said, I gave them the benefit of the doubt and started to look for supporting evidence for their proposal (below), but have come up short. --В²C ☎ 23:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No. WP:DUCK. Not sufficiently unfamiliar. WP:RM attracts NOTHERE shallow argumentative pedantic process wonks.  Genuine newcomers improve content. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Please let this discussion continue to see if a true consensus can be reached. Consider whether alternative name, e.g., Baby Broccoli BROCCOLINI might be appropriate based are discussion below.--Krivak957 (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support due to being the name recommended by other manufacturers (Struck, a majority of manufacturers seem to use "Sweet Baby Broccoli") – Neutral, with both names being somewhat common. Arguments by proposer are much better than last week so this renomination seems all right. – Þjarkur (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - New arguments are better in keeping with WP policies; supporting evidence provided. Article title should reflect widespread English name rather than a proprietary U.S. trademark. (Struck, true common name seems very difficult to ascertain either way; WP flora names policy is unclear; compromise may be best.) --Krivak957 (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC) --Weak Support - Leaning towards suggested adding notation regarding brand name in the lead rather than changing article name.--Krivak957 (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Broccolini may be more recognisable but that's a trademark that isn't owned by the company that developed it and would suggest it's limited to the product of Mann Produce Company. In the UK it's called Tenderstem broccoli, using a trademark owned by Sakata. Baby broccoli could be misleading, as the term doesn't mean what it looks like it should mean, but that can also be explained. Peter James (talk) 07:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, Peter James. It's helpful to learn this product has a different name in a large English-speaking country outside the US (i.e., "Tenderstem broccoli" in UK). As I have said above, it's hard to determine how much of the published use of "Broccolini" in on-line recipes and "food sections" of the newspapers was sponsored, inspired or suggested by the marketers for the Broccolini trademark. There's nothing wrong with this, that's what marketers do. They want to make their trademarks the best known name associated with new products. But it distorts the COMMONNAME issue for WP and makes it difficult to get "independent" evidence of the COMMONNAME. --Krivak957 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The current title is more common and less ambiguous than the proposed title as seen by evidence and arguments presented above and below.  —  AjaxSmack  01:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I've heard of broccolini, but this is the first I've heard of baby broccoli. It's unfortunate that the more common name is trademarked, but that's the way it is. Iamnotabunny (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
Some references...


 * Broccolini is a hybrid of broccoli and Chinese kale (called gai lan), and was developed in 1993 by the Sakata Seed Company of Yokohama, Japan. It was brought to the United States in 1998 by Mann Produce Company, who trademarked the term broccolini. Around the world, it’s also called baby broccoli, asparation, bimi, tenderstem broccoli, and broccoletti.
 * This validates the trademark claim, but doesn't help us determine the most common name used in English.
 * NY TIMES:
 * 775 results for "broccolini".
 * 224 results for "baby broccoli"
 * Point: broccolini

--В²C ☎ 22:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * SF TIMES:
 * 103 results for "broccolini"
 * 4 results for "baby broccoli"
 * Point: broccolini


 * cooksillustrated.com:
 * 84 results for "broccolini"
 * 0 results for "baby broccoli"
 * Point: "broccolini"

I'm not seeing evidence supporting the claim that "baby broccoli" is the COMMONNAME. --В²C ☎ 23:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I am a newcomer, so please pardon if my format/presentation is non-standard. This discussion seems focused exclusively on COMMONNAME; but don’t other considerations matter as well? In the case of broccolini, we’re talking about a plant, specifically a cultivar first developed in 1998. So this is something only 20-21 years old at most, not a traditional food long-known by some traditional common name. So in addition to COMMONNAME, shouldn’t we also be considering  Naming conventions (flora)?

For convenience of this discussion, I’m reproducing a few sections from the  Naming conventions (flora) article, namely, the section Selling names, which states:

''In addition to a unique cultivar name (regulated by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants), many cultivated plants have "selling names" or "marketing names"; the ICNCP calls these "trade designations". Trade designations are not regulated by the ICNCP; they are often different in different countries and can change over time. The ICNCP states that "trade designations must always be distinguished typographically from cultivar, Group and grex epithets." They should never be set in single quotes. Some are also registered trade marks (which cultivar names never are).''


 * As a newcomer, this suggests to me that Broccolini (which, since it is a registered trademark is definitely a trademark / trade designation / selling name) should not replace the cultivar’s unique name (which is “baby broccoli”) in an article title. However, the Selling name guidelines further indicate “there is currently no consensus as to how to represent trade designations in Wikipedia.”  So perhaps the COMMONNAME versus trade designation is somewhat an open question.  But that doesn’t mean that the selling name distinction should be ignored, does it?

The Selling name conventions continue as follows:

''If an article is given a title including a trade designation, it is recommended that the template is used. If a consensus on displaying trade designations is reached in future, consistency will be easy to achieve. Using the template also makes clear to other editors that no cultivar name is involved. For example, to give an article the title "Rosa Peace", create the article with the title "Rosa Peace" and then put ... (example) ... at the start. To give an article the title "Buddleja NANHO BLUE", create the article with the title "Buddleja Nanho Blue" and then put ... (example)... at the start. [You have to look in the article for the examples because they won't reproduce here.]''


 * I interpret this to say (paraphrasing), “it’s not recommended to use only a trade designation as a title for articles about cultivars.”  And further (paraphrasing) “if you do use a trade designation in an article title about cultivars, it is recommended to use a special template is recommended so that if consensus is reached on trade designations, then the article can be identified.”


 * So based on the above, if the article title shouldn’t move from “Broccolini” to “baby broccoli” due to COMMONNAME considerations, should it at least be amended from “Broccolini” to “Broccolini baby broccoli” or "Baby broccoli BROCCOLINI"(i.e., in different typesets as recommended by ICNCP) to also take into account the  Naming conventions (flora) considerations?

[In the interest of full disclosure, I have an interest in this subject matter. However, I am doing my best to be objective and base my arguments on Wikipedia guidelines as I understand them.]--Krivak957 (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the provisions of WP:FLORA for cultivars are becoming increasingly difficult to apply. This blog post gives a good overview of the situation. In short, plant breeders are increasingly using nonsensical strings of letters and numbers for cultivar names. They will then create a memorable, pronuncable trade designation and trademark it. People will naturally tend to use the more memorable trade designation to refer to the plant (and while patents eventually expire, trademarks do not). It's an even bigger problem for food plants than for ornamental plants. While many ornamental genera have an International Cultivar Registration Authority, ICRA's are almost entirely lacking for food plants (there isn't one for Brassica). Absent an ICRA, it is very difficult to research the actual cultivar name.


 * I'm not sure that 'baby broccoli' is actually a cultivar name. I do see that "baby broccoli" is the term used in the patent for purple baby broccoli cited in this article. Sakata themselves call broccolini "aspabroc" (see here), which is apparently a non-trademarked trade designation. Plantdrew (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The previous comment illuminates a point that is important to the transfer discussion. The trademark BROCCOLINI may be (arguably) more popular than the generic plant/food name “baby broccoli” due to marketing of the trademark by the developer. But since BROCCOLINI is a trademark, it is proprietary to one company. The trademark owner can prevent other growers and sellers from using “BROCCOLINI” to sell their own baby broccoli products. Thus, other companies call their baby broccoli products something else, e.g., “Sweet Baby Broccoli,” “Tenderstem Broccoli” etc. But it’s the same plant/food product, generically “baby broccoli.”

By keeping the article title “BROCCOLINI” without also identifying the product generically as “baby broccoli”, the public is misguided into believing that only BROCCOLINI (brand) baby broccoli must be used in all the recipes where the writer calls for the name brand rather than the generic product. In other words, the public will not know they can use any type of baby broccoli in the recipe that calls for BROCCOLINI. The article suggests BROCCOLINI is one thing, and the other seller's baby broccoli sold as, e.g., "Tenderstem Broccoli" is something else. It therefore seems a disservice to the public to make it look like the proprietary trademark is the name of the product.--Krivak957 (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "The public is misguided into believing that only BROCCOLINI (brand) baby broccoli must be used in all...recipes..." That can easily be ameliorated by wording in the intro.  Give readers a little credit.  —  AjaxSmack  01:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Further regarding article naming policy: The WP:Naming conventions (flora) specifically states "Don't confuse WP:COMMONNAME with common name" and includes a discussion of what this means in connection with WP:Article titles policy. The following statement is directly from the guidelines:

''Our WP:Article titles policy contains a section entitled "Use commonly recognizable names", more often referred to by the short-cut: WP:COMMONNAME. It is important not to confuse Wikipedia's concept of COMMONNAME with a plant's common (or vernacular) name. The policy uses the word "common" in the context of "what name is most frequently used", 'and not in the context of "what name do common folk use."

Thus, even if BROCCOLINI is a frequently-used name in the U.S., we should consider what the BROCCOLINI/baby broccoli plant/food is called in other English-speaking regions. Examples below:


 * Google search “baby broccoli +Australia” shows 195 results. Google search “broccolini +Australia” shows 24 results.


 * Point- Baby broccoli


 * Google search “baby broccoli +Europe” shows 127 results. Google search “broccolini +Europe” shows 3 results.


 * Point- Baby broccoli


 * Google search “baby broccoli +Japan” shows 124 results. Google search “broccolini +Japan” shows 23 results.


 * Point- Baby broccoli


 * Google search “baby broccoli +Canada” shows 415 results. Google search “broccolini +Canada” shows 16 results.


 * Point- Baby broccoli


 * Google search “baby broccoli +United States” shows 487 results. Google search “broccolini +United States” shows 38 results.


 * Point- Baby broccoli


 * Google search “baby broccoli +United Kingdom” shows 392 results. Google search “broccolini +United Kingdom” shows 31 results.


 * Point- Baby broccoli

Based on my interpretation of the WP:COMMONNAME Guidelines and the Google search evidence, it appears baby broccoli is more recognizable and frequently used than broccolini.

MWMDL (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Your search string is missing quotation marks.
 * {| class="wikitable"

!Search !Results !Search !Results
 * "baby broccoli" +"japan" -"sweet baby broccoli"
 * 15,400
 * "broccolini" +"japan"
 * 148,000
 * "baby broccoli" +"United States" -"sweet baby broccoli"
 * 18,300
 * "broccolini" +"United States"
 * 183,000
 * }
 * But apart from that, counting total results from a general Google search is so unreliable that it does not necessarily tell us much. Here above, Born2Cycle showed us results only from specific sites, which is more reliable. – Þjarkur (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * While ghits and google ngrams are always fun to look at, and are informative, they are not reliable, and they are not a good basis for scholarly decisions. The final decision should come from what quality sources use.  Unfortunately, quality sources are a bit thin.  Do you have a suggestion to what you would consider quality sources for introducing this vegetable?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But apart from that, counting total results from a general Google search is so unreliable that it does not necessarily tell us much. Here above, Born2Cycle showed us results only from specific sites, which is more reliable. – Þjarkur (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * While ghits and google ngrams are always fun to look at, and are informative, they are not reliable, and they are not a good basis for scholarly decisions. The final decision should come from what quality sources use.  Unfortunately, quality sources are a bit thin.  Do you have a suggestion to what you would consider quality sources for introducing this vegetable?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for comment that Google hits are not the only way to discuss. The hits from Google, etc. may reflect the success of marketing by the trademark holder rather than actual common name. Can you clarify what you mean by quality sources? Do you mean more/different surveys or do you many more specific articles like this historical (1999) article from the Washington Post? https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/food/1999/02/24/the-birth-of-broccolini-sometimes-a-great-notion-becomes-a-new-vegetable/bb23dfcf-4168-4cef-8ef2-a2e88e7359b8/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.52a902fe952f If you just skim the article, it appears to support the notion that the common name is Broccolini. But if you read carefully you learn several things: 1) Broccolini is different from broccoli (i.e., not “young” broccoli), thus definitely a different variety of food plant; 2) the name Broccolini itself was made up by one company (Mann Packing) for marketing its own brand of the product; and 3) the full name that Mann Packing has for their Broccolini is actually “Broccolini Brand Baby Broccoli.” Obviously, it takes a lot of time to research this type of quality sources.  But if this is the type of thing that will be useful and/or persuasive, it can be done.  But if this is not what you mean by quality sources then please clarify what would be persuasive.

Could you share your thoughts regarding this alternative: Rather than change the article title from “Broccolini” to “Baby broccoli”, would it be preferable to leave the article title but open with an explanatory phrase like you have in the articles for brand name products like “Coca-Cola” and “iPhone”, e.g., “Broccolini is a broccoli hybrid packed and marketed by Mann Packing.” MWMDL (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it would be good to mention that it is a brand name in the lead. Plantdrew (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I also think it would be good to mention that it is a brand name in the lead. This would allow the article name to remain as is. Krivak957 (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2019 (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.

Trademark Info.
Previous discussions in connection with Requested Move concluded that adding information explaining that common name is registered trademark into text of article was preferable to changing article name. Therefore, added factual information about trademark with citation to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for support. --Krivak957 (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)