Talk:Raspberry

Fibre per day
The British Heart Foundation recommend 30g for females and males. The statement that females should have less might be dangerously misleading. Physical size and work now being more equal. https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/nutrition/fibre#:~:text=How%20much%20fibre%20should%20I,are%20rich%20in%20fibre%20too. 2A00:23C5:9E8E:3801:5874:DC26:9D8C:18B9 (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Dietary fiber comparisons among various foods is offtopic for this article. I removed the "comparison" table as having low relevance and inadequate sourcing. Zefr (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Raspberries (Rubus_idaeus).jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 14, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-12-14. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * - please remove or rewrite the misinformation in the last sentence of the image caption: nutrient content for raspberries is provided in the USDA table already in the article as an expert source; raspberries contain negligible iron (see table), and the only dietary 'antioxidant' present is vitamin C. No WP:MEDRS sources and no national regulatory agency states that raspberries are rich in unnamed 'antioxidants' other than vitamin C. Only vitamins A-C-E are dietary antioxidants; other raspberry compounds like polyphenols are not nutrients but are only phytochemicals with unknown in vivo effects. Zefr (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Production table
Per MOS:ACCESS, floating elements should be placed inside the section they belong to; do not place the image at the end of the previous section. Consequently I have moved the production table into the production section.

This has the disadvantage of creating a tall thin table with 13 lines of text in desktop mode to display just 6 rows of data in a short 1-paragraph section which stacks it into the table in the next section. I attempted to alleviate this with these changes which were reverted by @Zefr The result is a table that is half the height and only slightly wider but still ok on narrow screens. I propose to restore #1-#4 and a revised #5. I am open to other suggestions on how to improve this table’s appearance in the article, eg, by adjusting or eliminating any of these. — YBG (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Moving the source text completely into a footnote and the footnote into the header. (-2 line)
 * 2) Changing width:14em to  whitespace:nowrap. (-2 lines)
 * 3) Moving the units from the headers into each row. (-1 line)
 * 4) Eliminating the column headers. It is obvious that one column is the country and the other is amount produced.  (-1 line)
 * 5) Right aligning the table cells so the units were aligned. In retrospect, I should have kept the countries left aligned so the flags lined up.
 * 6) Adding clear at the end to prevent table stacking. In retrospect, I think this was a mistake.


 * I think you're overconcerned with minor technical issues. Over many years of editing this production section, I have checked the display of table and text on at least 4 different computers and various cell phones with narrow screens, with no issues that detract from informing the common user.
 * Regarding your suggestions: 1. disagree; search sources like Google retrieve what is written in the text, so a footnote may not provide any information to the search user, and de-emphasizes the country volumes easily seen in the table and discussed by the text. 2. disagree; the 14em width was chosen to accommodate the flags and summary data, and has worked fine this way for years. It could be changed to 13em or 15em, but 14em was chosen as the narrowest good display on different devices. 3. disagree; the suggestion is illogically repetitive and adds width to each row; scientific tables would not repeat the same column measure as you suggest. 4. disagree; the header for thousands of tonnes explains the column values - think of the common user who may be unfamiliar with data displays - the current format is a simple presentation. 5. disagree; this is a style choice made during editing - centered flags and data are a more pleasing display, in my opinion. 6. in such a case as this table with short text content, the clear command creates unnecessary white space. Zefr (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable" style="float:right; width:13em; text-align:center;"


 * + Raspberry production 2022, in thousands of tonnes
 * 🇷🇺 ||212
 * 🇲🇽 ||174
 * 🇷🇸 ||116
 * 🇵🇱 ||105
 * 🇺🇸 ||76
 * World ||948
 * }
 * Good points all, @Zefr, though I believe you misunderstood my point 1 and I am fairly confident that Google screenscrapes the entire page including the references section. Anyway, here is my compromise proposal.
 * — YBG (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks - looks good (13em works). Zefr (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I moved it to the article with one minor change: changing "width:13em" to "white-space:nowrap". This guarantees that the width will be the minimum needed to avoid line wrapping no matter what weird combination of browser and font is being used. YBG (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * World ||948
 * }
 * Good points all, @Zefr, though I believe you misunderstood my point 1 and I am fairly confident that Google screenscrapes the entire page including the references section. Anyway, here is my compromise proposal.
 * — YBG (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks - looks good (13em works). Zefr (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I moved it to the article with one minor change: changing "width:13em" to "white-space:nowrap". This guarantees that the width will be the minimum needed to avoid line wrapping no matter what weird combination of browser and font is being used. YBG (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I moved it to the article with one minor change: changing "width:13em" to "white-space:nowrap". This guarantees that the width will be the minimum needed to avoid line wrapping no matter what weird combination of browser and font is being used. YBG (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)