[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Taro

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BrynnD.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge. --Phonet (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitly combine them they are one and the same thing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.100.73 (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion of proposed merge of Taro and Colocasia esculenta at Talk:Taro. Richard New Forest (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Taro" is the common name used for a wide variety of plants, all with different scientific names. The problem with relying on a common name alone is that it will not be clear precisely which plant one is referring to, particularly when the same plant in different regions or in different countries will have several different common names. Although "taro" refers to a group of a certain type of plant, one needs to be clear about what plant is being discussed."Taro" can be used for example to commonly describe Alocasia marcrorrhizos (sometimes called Giant Taro, or Upright Elephant Ear), Colocasia esculenta (also called Imperial Taro, Dasheen, or Elephant Ears), Xanthosoma sagittifolium (sometimes also called Elephant ears, or the variety 'Lime Zinger' may be called Yellow Taro), and so on. I would definitely recommend keeping this page seperate, but perhaps incorporating some of the information into the Taro page.76.124.100.143 (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colocasia esculenta. 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:

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) 01:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colocasia esculenta. 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:

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) 15:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Phytochemistry" section removed

[edit]

I'll remove this section because the source given in this section, Hossain RZ, Ogawa Y, Morozumi M, Hokama S, Sugaya K (May 2003). "Milk and calcium prevent gastrointestinal absorption and urinary excretion of oxalate in rats". Frontiers in Bioscience. 8: a117–125. doi:10.2741/1083. PMID 12700095., does not mention anything about taro. Presumably the writer of this section doesn't have a good knowledge about taro.

Taro it self is very rich in calcium and contains calcium oxalate rather than oxalic acid. To reduce the consumption of oxalic acid, blanching the spinach and disposing the water would help, but steeping cubed taro roots in cold water doesn't quite make sense because calcium oxalate is insoluble. Likewise, it makes sense to consume spinach with milk, but not taro with milk. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 May 2019

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. bd2412 T 04:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Colocasia esculenta → Taro – Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article title should use the common name, not the scientific name. Taro already redirects to the article, the disambiguation page is at Taro (disambiguation), and there are no other topics that are good candidates to occupy the article namespace. LK (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Sam Sailor 11:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A merge from Taro was performed in 2018, so this RM could do with a discussion. Sam Sailor 11:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • I am agnostic on a move at the moment, but urge careful consideration. Colocasia esculenta and Taro were separate articles until this move discussion. Several species are called "taro" and Colocasia esculenta has other common names such as dasheen and elephant ear. There have been several discussions of these issues in the past, including here and here. —  AjaxSmack  17:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think the fact that we once had separate articles for taro and C. esculenta is indicative that the common name is less ambiguous. Though I tend to favor the scientific name as the article title rather than the common name, I make exceptions for species where they are really most widely known only by one name, and I think it applies to this case. Other species called "taro" usually have more specific names, e.g. "swamp taro", "giant taro", etc. (cf. "potato" vs. "sweet potato"). Plus, none of the other "taros" come close to the C. esculenta when it comes to global cultivation and spread. "Dasheen" is limited in usage and can apply to other root crops, while "elephant's ear" is also very ambiguous and only used in its ornamental aspect.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. 99% of plant articles use the scientific name as a title. That's a big point for WP:AT CONSISTENCY. WP:COMMONNAME double dips the RECOGNIZABILITY article title criterion. "Common name" is a term of art for organisms; medical articles routinely use clinical terms (patella not kneecap). Wikipedia is not going to come up with a rational, consistent way to title plant species by vernacular names. Keep this at the scientific name title per WP:NCFLORA. Is there any actual harm to using the scientific name title? Redirects will get people searching for "taro" to this article anyway. Plantdrew (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think where very common names exist we should use those instead of the scientific name, and the fact that Taro is already a redirect (and was merged), means that the determination has already been made that this is the primary topic for the term. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As WP:COMMONNAME. I agree with Amkaru's reasoning - if taro is good enough for a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, that's strong evidence that using it as the title is not a problem wrt precision. Furthermore, the text of the article itself overwhelmingly uses the term 'taro' over the scientific name. Colin M (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2019 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-move

[edit]

taro root

[edit]

How many countries in the world may have a taro root 103.200.35.10 (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest moving information from "Distribution and Habitat" section to introductory paragraph + Is this a Bushfood or Bush Tucker?

[edit]

Most of the plant/tree pages I've been reading have the information on where the plant/tree is native and its distribution, including if it's recognised as an invasive species, in the introductory paragraph.

May I suggest for consistency that the relevant information from the "Distribution and Habitat" section be moved to the introductory paragraph.

Since taro has been a staple food for many countries for many years/centuries, does this mean it's a "bushfood?" If so, may I suggest adding "Bushfood" at the bottom of this page with a link to the "Bushfood" page, then add it to the list in the "Bushfood" page.

Is taro a "Bush Tucker" food in Australia? I note it says, "In Australia, Colocasia esculenta var. aquatilis is thought to be native to the Kimberley region of Western Australia..." If so, may I suggest adding a note under "See also" section that this is a "Bush Tucker" food, with a link to the "Bush Tucker" page. Then add it to the list on the "Bush Tucker" page.

Tzali (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their Roots are called Nduma in Kikuyu language of Kenya while their leaves are called Marutu

[edit]

Taro 154.157.36.85 (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map accuracy

[edit]

Map does not reflect major production in Ethiopia. Gebrelu (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taro&oldid=1231110923"