Talk:Vigna subterranea

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 carefull 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) 19:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The number of common names for this plant in English is quite large, and much larger when transliterated names from other languages are included. It is a crop grown primarily in parts of the world where English is not the majority language, so there is no one overwhelmingly predominant English name. In accordance with WP:PLANTS, I would like to move it to the scientific name Vigna subterranea. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bambara groundnut → Vigna subterranea –


 * Support per nomination. Plantdrew (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Too many common names in different languages and countries, and one very precise unambiguous scientific name that is used everywhere. First Light (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Ridiculous Map
According to the map, huge quantities of Bambara Ground Nuts are grown in Australia. Rubbish, never heard of it here. The map obviously refers to some other crop and should be removed. --MichaelGG (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. I've removed it from here, and will try to do that same at the Japanese wikipedia. It might be somehow influenced by this report on all the areas of the world that could potentially grow bambara nut, but it doesn't match that either. I wasn't able to trace the data to the source cited on the map itself, but it is easy to confirm that this is not a crop grown in Australia. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Vigna subterranea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150906230329/http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567 to http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567#ancor
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150906230329/http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567 to http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567#ancor
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040508063542/http://cee.mtu.edu:80/~jeannis/Groundnuts.html to http://www.cee.mtu.edu/~jeannis/Groundnuts.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Missing close quote and sentence-terminal punctuation
"Due to its high protein value it is a very important crop for people in Africa[8] Despite its nutritional value, it is still considered as one of the prioritized neglected and underutilized species in Benin.[10]

I could slap in a period and double quote after "Africa" and I would probably be right. But I don't want to be probably right about attributed material and I'm too busy with other concurrent edits to hunt this one down. &mdash; MaxEnt 22:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Fixed up the Importance section.
I found a couple citations for protein and carbs, but I went with the range from what looked to be the bigger study, and one where there was more specific values for the amounts. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23768187/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4519478/

Where the two papers, I used the Journal of Food Science and Technology numbers.