Talk:Coffea canephora

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Coffea canephora article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Previous usage

What was the original usage of robusta beans? Komitsuki (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. The rate of one !vote a week does not suggest that a consensus is likely to be achieved anytime soon, if ever. (I'm also taking into account the similarly inconclusive thread in archive 1 of thiis talk page.) Deor (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coffea canephora → Robusta coffee – Per WP:Common name and WP:FLORA we should use the most readily understood and most widely used name as an article title. Sources, including those currently used in the article, use "Robusta coffee", and when using "Coffea canephora" will tend to say (as does the article introduction): "commonly known (or better known) as Robusta coffee". Under the principle of least astonishment, the term most widely used and most widely understood is the preferred name for an article in order to reassure a reader that they have arrived at the right place. A reader who is already familiar with the scientific name, "Coffea canephora", will be aware that it is also known as robusta; while a reader who is only familiar with the common name may wonder why their search request produced an article called by an unfamiliar name. The time for educating people as to the official or scientific or alternative names for a topic, are when they are secure they have arrived at the right place and have started reading; until that point, the principle is that we use the best known name to reassure the most people. Google or book searches will indicate that "Robusta coffee" is about four times more used than "Coffea canephora" --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC) SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Robusta coffee" is just an anglicized version of the previous widely used name for this species, Coffea robusta. Coffea canephora is twice as likely to be used as "Robusta coffee" in Google Scholar. Coffea canephora is the most widely used name for this species in reliable source. Rkitko ^(talk) 11:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "Robusta coffee" is more recognizable to readers. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 12:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rkitko. I also searched Google Scholar and found the current title to be more than twice as common as the proposed title. Jenks24 (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (I !voted above) I'll just note here that the article as it currently exists stands as a decent start on the description of the species. An article titled at "robusta coffee" would naturally be better styled as an article on the products, usage, and consumption. We often split articles: one for the biology, taxonomy, ecology and one that focuses on the product, production, and consumption (see WP:FLORA). This article isn't large enough to split and we already have an article on coffee that discusses the role of "robusta" and "arabica" production so there's no need to split. The current (scientific name) title is best suited for the focus of this article. It's just a bonus that Google Scholar hits support the scientific name as the most commonly used name in reliable sources. Rkitko ^(talk) 21:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

percent robusta grown globally - conflicting information

This article claims that 30% of coffee produced globally is robusta. The source link claims it's 40%. The coffea article claims it's 20%. Which is it? Pjcronje (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since 2006 production of Robusta coffee production has been between 60,000 and 80,000 thousand 60 kilogram bags. Arabica coffee sits around 90,000 to 100,000. I don't know if this needs corrected.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/225402/world-robusta-coffee-production/%20thousand%2060%20kilogram%20bags

The Impartial Truth (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coffea canephora. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20090324155957/http://www.ico.org:80/botanical.asp to http://www.ico.org/botanical.asp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coffea canephora. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ico.org/botanical.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051106024414/http://dev.ico.org/prices/m1.htm to http://dev.ico.org/prices/m1.htm/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal 14 December 2018

The contents in Coffea canephora and Robusta coffee laregely overlap, and I think it might be better off merged. Currently Arabica coffee redirects to Coffea arabica, so I suggest that we redirect Robusta coffee to Coffea canephora likewise. --Brett (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Badly written

The "Cultivation and use" section is very badly written, with a lot of repetition of the same 3 facts with different words. It should be revised (won't do it because I lack confidence in my English) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.31.207.141 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]