Talk:Maple syrup

Usage of 'North American Maple Syrup Producers Manual' as a source in this article.
The 'manual' has been used as a source for over 20 citations (#s 10, 18, 25, 26, 27, 48, 49, 52, and 82). They all link to the following site (https://web.archive.org/web/20160924094635/http://estore.osu-extension.org/cw_Search.aspx?k=maple), except for # 49 which I just added today. The one I added is a full online PDF version (https://holmes.osu.edu/sites/holmes/files/imce/Program_Pages/Maple/North%20American%20Maple%20Syrup%20Producers%20Manual%20full%20pdf.pdf) from Ohio State University (osu). In the next few days, I plan on updating all of them to point to the PDF version. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Merge dupe refs
Hello The duplicate s do need to be merged the way @ did or in some similar way. I don't know about the other changes. Invasive Spices (talk) 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Moved from my Talk:
 * Hi Invasive Species,


 * To which duplicate references are you referring? Citations 5, 7, 9, and 14 are about 4 different species of maple trees, as are citations 6, 8, 10, and 15 (with pictures). Absolutely Certainly (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There were multiple duplicate references that should have all been . I think Nikkimaria has done all of these. This is explained WP:DUPCITES. — Invasive Spices (talk) 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You have now removed these repeated references. What is your rationale for doing this? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Absolutely Certainly I don't think you understand DUPCITES. They should not be removed. The  should be reused with  . You can see that Nikkimaria did that  . Invasive Spices (talk) 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Moved again from my talk. Invasive Spices (talk) 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You provided an explanation backed with a reference that confirms your explanation. I will pass on trying to improve this article as their is too much opposition. But if I did, an example of a major change I would do is change the first paragraph of the lead from:
 * Maple syrup is a syrup made from the xylem sap of sugar maple, black maple or red maple trees, although it can also be made from other maple species. In cold climates, these trees store starch in their trunks and roots before winter; the starch is then converted to sugar that rises in the sap in late winter and early spring. Maple trees are tapped by drilling holes into their trunks and collecting the sap, which is processed by heating to evaporate much of the water, leaving the concentrated syrup.
 * To:
 * Maple syrup is made from the sap of maple trees. The sap is collected by drilling small holes into the trunks of a maple trees. inserting small pipes in the holes, which allow the sap to flow into containers placed below the pipes. The collected sap is then boiled down to produce maple syrup. Mainly produced in Eastern Canada and Northern New England, Quebec is notable as it produces 70% of the total worldwide supply.
 * Short, sweet. Avoids all the specific information that is explained in the body of the article. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * WOW! Absolutely Certainly (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Grading
The third paragraph of the lead is contradicted by the information in the section /* Grades */ Absolutely Certainly (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Maple syrup in abolution use
There is disagreement whether to include a sentence about an abolitionist named Lucretia Mott who, as part of avoiding any slave-made products such as sugar cane, distributed maple-flavored candies with the tag "“Take this, my friend, you need not fear to eat. No slave hath toiled to cultivate this sweet.” It is discussed in a Nation magazine profile of her work. I think this is an interesting and insightful item but another editor feels it's not of sufficient importance for this article, since the use of maple by abolitionists is already mentioned. After bouncing back and forth, does anybody else have an opinion? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I say: include it. It's a factoid that makes clear the relevancy of maple syrup to the abolitionist issue, rather than only a bald statement to that effect.Smallchief (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It cannot do so, because it is not about maple syrup at all - it's about maple sugar. It may be relevant to that article assuming it is accurate - there seems to be some disagreement on details in sources, and the source in use here is not one that seems reliable for historical studies - but not here, even leaving aside issues of due weight. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The previous sentence in the article mentions maple sugar. However, that is a good point - Mott wasn't handing out containers of maple syrup. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree .....should move info to Maple sugar. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 14:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to that. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Citation maintenance notice regarding short footnotes
In order to maintain consistency in articles using a particular short footnote style, a notice was placed at the beginning of this talk page which appears to fit the style being used for this article. The intention is to be an aid to contributors and citation maintenance editors in upgrading citations to the highest Wikipedia standards. It is often unclear what the rationale is for sfn and harvnb use due to the mixture with inline ref citations which inevitably occurs due to contributors being unfamiliar with short footnotes. However the notice may incorrectly style for this article, and that the actual rule is different. For example- that sources always are placed in the cited works section if they are notable, regardless if they have different pages referenced or not. If some other rule is being used, please add a note here and I will place the correct notice here. J JMesserly (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you're suggesting here - notability has nothing to do with where a source is cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * User:Nikkimaria, thank you for responding. I gather that my guess is that the style notice I added to the top of this talk page correctly describes the style of short footnote use in this article?  It does not state the rationale has anything to do with notability as you can see. (See highlighted section).  If this particular notice does not correctly describe the rationale used, then may I ask what rule editors should use when deciding when to use ref versus sfns?


 * To answer your query though, some articles have different criteria for what sources are and are not included in the sorted sources list- it is up to the contributors and there are no guidelines regarding which styles are preferred or discouraged other than that they be consistent. For example the goal could be to create a sorted list of notable cited works, with less notable citations left inline. J JMesserly (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

TFA?
Hi all, I'm wondering if this article would be suitable for Today's Featured Article on the Main Page in October of this year or next year. I mentioned the article as a possibility at WT:TFA, and one person said that it looks "rough". Thoughts? I have no objection to some kind of formal article-vetting process at WP:URFA or elsewhere if that's needed, but I see a lot of conscientious editors in the edit history ... so, I'll leave it up to you folks. - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * What were your specific concerns? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Nikki, good to see you. Btw, apologies, I had it on my to-do list to make this post asking about a possible TFA rerun, but it didn't get done until yesterday ... oops. I really like this article and I think it would be good for October, but there's no rush ... next October would work just as well, if anyone wants more time to work on it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I just got a request to move this TFA rerun to July 1 or July 2 ... works for me, but I'm open to other ideas. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Almost a year later: I've checked the edits since mid-July, nothing jumps out at me as a problem. I'll read this through again tomorrow, but at the moment it looks good to go for TFA. Any objections? I'm planning to schedule this one (on July 2 ... Flag of Canada will be on the 1st) as soon as Wehwalt finishes up June, which will be soon. - Dank (push to talk) 05:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)