Talk:Sugar apple

Back in 2008 a merge proposal for these 2 articles was rejected on the grounds that the economic fruit deserved one article, the botanical species another. Fair enough, perhaps. But today, the two articles have substantial overlap - the Sugar-Apple article for example talks about the semi-evergreen shrub with very detailed measurements of the leaves and flowers, which you might think better suited for a botanical article on the species of plant rather than one on the fruit; leaving aside the obvious point that they are the same species of plant.

Do the articles need clearer separation? Merging, pace the old proposal? Or neither? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's it's life span? What's it's pollinator? What distributes it's seeds? ETC ETC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.72.160 (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the names of it in India is Persian by origin: shareefa (sarifa), also known as sitafal in some parts of india. Possibly it was known in Asia before its discovery in South America. It is still common in India, but very seasonal, to be had for a very short time only during summer monsoon, thus a little expensive, too. Eaten can be the thin soft white skin of the black kernels from inside the fruit, sometimes tiny hard sugary-starchy pieces stick to that, which can be eaten too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.4.118.90 (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC) The photograph seems to show an unripe exemplar of the species. Usually no cuts are needed, since each of the kernels has its own green part, thus can be plucked individually after a little pressure on the outside which makes the apple burst open. The squamosa is not the same as the cherimoya, though they both go as custard-apple.[reply]

There's a notice that a merge proposal was made in 2013 but no section in the discussion page about it.

The proposal has been made twice before and voted down based on the wikipedia guidelines that the fruit and botanical species can be treated as a separate subject. That's how i would vote on the matter, especially considering the regional ambiguity about what constitutes a sugar apple, but i do agree with the comment made that there is overlap in the two articles and suggest they be excised of unnecessarily redundant material and made to reference one another in a way that discourages recurrence. If merge proposal fails, I will make some efforts to that end. Pouletic (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the idea of having two articles, one about the fruit and one about the plant, but the current status doesn't seem to make a good distinction between the two. I agree with you that there is currently too much overlap between the two articles (and that's presumably the reason for the merge proposals). You have my support for any effort you want to make to disentangle the two topics. Deli nk (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have excised most of the material on the

sugar-apple page that is not specific to the fruit itself. Content that was not redundant and also reasonably well cited was moved to the Annona squamosa page. I removed the merge proposal template from both pages. There is still room for refinement in both pages, but the major surgery has been done. I hope i didn't step on too many toes. Much of the content was anecdotal, anyway. Note that the paragraph about atemoya should probably be dealt with somehow: i didn't touch it. Pouletic (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

The nomenclature section is unencyclopedic and reads like a direct lift from Wiktionary. This is also the case for some other culinary plant articles on Wikipedia, for some reason those that have relevance to India and its surrounds (similar long lists of terms in non-English languages exist on the pages for Jackfruit, Carambola, Tamarind, Cardamom, Ginger, and Galangal). Unless there are very good reasons for keeping these sections as they are, I propose they should be relegated to Wiktionary, where such lists can be dealt with much more easily. Thefamouseccles (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Custard pear and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 4#Custard pear until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back in April 2008, there was a merge proposal that passed as "Merge" this article with Annona squamosa. Then for some reason, even though it passed, a second merge proposal was made that failed. This same proposal took place on the Annona squamosa page with the same results, but only because the same people voted on it, and the one that passed was the one that took place first. There is an additional request for the articles to be merged at the Annona squamosa page, so that could count as a vote for merge anyway, causing that proposal to be a "Merge" result as well.

It is correct to merge these two articles. Take