Talk:Chestnut: Difference between revisions

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Plants C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Food and drink C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Template:WP1.0

Does the american chestnut blight affect the horse chestnut?

Can't imagine it would, as the trees are completely unrelated. KristianMikk

Found a good image for chestnuts at: http://www.pusanweb.com/food/guides/streetfood/chestnut.jpg I'm too lazy to check for copyrights and upload and all. Someone plz. do it for me. For more images see: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&q=chestnut&sa=N&tab=wi

Why is only the Metric system used instead both English and Metrics? I have no idea as most Americans what the fuck a meter is. Someone must have gone through the entire article and removed all mention of the English system. That was a rotten thing to do. --68.118.188.188 (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

cuz i googled images and got the same results for each nut thanks!

Wikipedia has a nice article on hazel nut that has clear pictures. What's not clear from the pictures is that hazel nuts are much smaller. --71.51.64.122 (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many differences. The seed are among the few things that look somewhat alike. But as entire plants they are quite dissimilar. Though they both have their male flowers in catkins for example, and in this particular case this is even a sign of their relationship (it was once believed that most all plants with catkins would belong to a group called Hamamelididae, but this is not correct).

Altogether, one might say that a chestnut and a hazelnut plant are about as closely related as a human and a capuchin monkey. They are not too far apart; as your question shows, one can recognize that. But they are not particularly close either. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone edit this article with some nutritional info? As I understand it, chestnuts differ from most other nuts in having little or no fat and very little protein -- but lots of starch. I would like to see more about content analysis for chestnuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.13.20 (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about them, we don't eat the Common ("Horse") Chestnut, and the Edible Maron Chestnut does not grow here. HOWEVER, the article states that chestnuts have way more starch than potatoes. While this may be technically true, it is due to the high water content of the potato. The nutritients of potato are almost completely carbohydrates, a bit of protein, it's a (fattening) carbohydrate food like rice and noodles --88.74.176.26 (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which species of chestnut is the Dwarf Chestnut? Reading from the [Grocer's Encyclopedia] -- search for Dwarf Chestnut, it says

a low tree, bearing fruit the size of a hazel nut. A number of species are native to the East. It does not grow south of Maryland.

— Grocer's Encyclopedia 1911

Please add the historical name of Dwarf Chestnut to the article if the correct species is found.

Thanks, Onionmon 06:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has been added (not by me) - Castanea pumila, whose scientific name indeed literally means "tiny chestnut". Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to straighten out the redirects here. Chinkapins are not chestnuts. The subject word is "chestnut", a common name, not Castanea, a genus name. Chinkapins and chestnuts both belong to Castanea, which should be the topic. "Chinkapin" and "Chestnut" should redirect to Castanea.

Partly correct, partly wrong (and fixed that). Chinkapins are a number of Fagaceae (including some Castanea), but for Castanopsis "chinkapin" is the only name that is used to any extent in English. Outside North America "chinkapin" is not used for Castanea to any extent, and scientists use it for some Castanea, all Castanopsis, and (as "golden chinkapin") for Chrysolepis with no clear pattern, says Google Scholar. So Chinkapin is now disambiguation. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the maggots in the chestnuts, are they 'fly' maggots? How do they get inside the chestnuts? Do the flies lay eggs outside the chestnut so the maggots will crawl into the tip of the chestnut? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.66.218.156 (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IONO exactly what maggots you refer to, but usually the insects (flies, midges...) lay their eggs inside the flowers and the larvae then grow together with the chestnut, getting inside before it gets the spiny husk. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castanea is not a Latin but a Greek name.Even in modern greek we call it καστανιά(castania)...It is widely known that many latin words come from greek ones...In modern greek "Kastanos andras" means brown-haired man...kastanos means dark brown from the co;our of chestnuts(kastana) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.219.17 (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What we need here is a link to some dictionary that says what you say (i.e. showing that the greek version predates the latin one). Am keeping that in mind... but if you've got one it'll be done quicker. Basicdesign (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many apologies for reverting many recent good-faith edits. Can we take a breather and discuss several issues raised please. I think much of the material is worth including, but we need to make sure we don't lose existing material, nor introduce multiple errors and style mistakes. I'll list some of these in a minute. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi. don't want to walk onanyone's shoes. Have faithfully re-integrted everything of past article in new thing. It does not show all of it yet b/c havee not finished putting in everything, there are bits at the end. Have even added refs to what was not so referenced, and intended to go back to the previous version to check on the refs I may have emissed.

What else? Basicdesign (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, apologies for wholesale reversion. I started to do some corrections, but realised that there were very many to do, and that further edits were going on. Here are a few of the problems:

• Scientific names are always in italics, and the second (species) name never has an initial capital.
• Bold is only used in certain circumstances on WP, and not for emphasis (see MOS:BOLD).
• Links should not be to dabs already linked in header.
• We are talking of species here, not varieties.
• In this article, English names of species are not capitalised. In any case, English names of more general types (oak, beech, chestnut) are not capitalised. Nor are
• Names of publications are italicised.

Sorry, no time just now to go into it in more detail. Can I suggest editing one bit at a time, without changing the order, and giving time for discussion along the way? I do like the new nutrition section. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"editing one bit at a time, without changing the order, and giving time for discussion along the way" looks what I wanted to do. True I haven't thoroughly gone into that sort of details so far, I just do them as I meeet them til I've finished putting the lot. I wrote that big mass of infos, intending to then put it in bit by bit, but it didn't work out with the refs, had to have the lot in to see where the faults are. Can I please finish putting the whole in and so finish with the refs adjustments, then we can start on the less complicated bits - we could split the work, onee of start by the begining and thee other by the end? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basicdesign (talk • contribs) 20:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning, I can't do much if you don't reverse the reversal... You still there? (not b***ered off, just like that, after having removed everything? b/c what you mention is petty motive quickly sorted and not worth removing good info. I can't plug on that fully til aftere the ref bit is finished...). Thanks for letting the baby out before wiping off the smears... :-) Basicdesign (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry – other things to do. I suggest either doing one section at a time, and being patient, or restore the edits and do it all in one go – then be prepared to have it heavily edited. Perhaps pay a bit more attention to detail as you go..? What I'm trying to avoid is having to plough through big edits, where unchanged and reasonably stable text is hidden amongst the new stuff. I certainly don't want to hinder the article being improved. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fuuiii, thanks, u still there :-). As I said, I don't really have the choice other than putting everything up , because of the refs. Have started going thru what you said. I often copy names directly from the sites I read them in, so some have capitals at second latin names. Have seen a couple, will probably miss some - like for thee rest. Yep, am keeping your list on desktop. But must say for now am all concentrated on the refs, that needs a lot of attention, it's a real puzzle, takes ages! Nearly there. As you may have noticed, I've got a keyboard that misses a few buttons and so doubles letters or misses some aphazardly, very pronee on doubling e's and missing 'a's, that is already a challenge...

bold: have used it to differenciate heads of paragraphs so as to not add too many sub-paragraphs. Don't mind any other way of differenciating these, just it must be seen as different paragraphs one way or another.

heavy edits: all the better. But it would be good to see any stuff removed in the discussion page, and help to find the page where it must go, coz it's all interesting. There's some info in the discussion page I hadn't seen (the dwarf chestnut, cute). Just added it too. Okay, you alright for reversing your reversal? Basicdesign (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. My bedtime anyway... Richard New Forest (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okay. Sweet chestnut dreams ;-))Basicdesign (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Native Americans were eating America's own species, Castanea dentata. ...etc" is a cheat on that the word 'species' looks the same in singular and plural. Hence I've added "mainly ''Castanea dentata'' and some others". Makes the sentence heavier but is more accurate. Could also say "America's own several species..." but then you lose the fact that dentata was so dominant. To choose... Basicdesign (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also "The European and west Asian Sweet Chestnuts are susceptible, but less so than the American specie" (singular specie). ...Basicdesign (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Species" is both singular and plural, like sheep and trousers. "The American species" is correct. There is no word "specie" in this sense, though it is sometimes made up in error (for the same reason you did). One day it may become a word – such things have happened before: "cherry" is a made-up word, imagined to be the singular of "cherys" (from French cerise), which was already singular; "pea" was made up from "pease", which was a mass noun (like milk or sand) so had no plural ("pease pudding" was not made from "peas" as "milk pudding" is not made from "milks") – see back-formation. Richard New Forest (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

at this stage:

"for the same reason you did": nah, I just as I said "faithfully took in what was there" when I arrived. Native tongue's French, here, so wld have hesitated between 'specie' and 'specia' and wld have settled by making the sentence plural :-) Was just about to leave you a note saying that "I probably overdid it with the capitals, but in doubt I give respect to trees and thanks for not overdoing it yourself when you de-capitalise". Got to stop for a while. Thanks (for letting me potter with it long enough for the overhaul, notably :-). Basicdesign (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I think I'll go for hazelnuts and walnuts now; and to see what mix of planting is best in various conditions. Want to check New Zealand in particular. (If you have any ideas on that, by all means please do leave them on my page, thanks). So your turn to play... Basicdesign (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Plants for a future it says:

"The sub-species C. pumila ashei. Sudw."

I thought I had understood it as: Castanea is the genus, pumilla or sativa or ... is the species, "underneath" you get the varieties. What is that "sub-species C. pumila ashei. Sudw." doing? What in there is the sub-species: the pumila bit or the ashei bit? Basicdesign (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Plants for a future (same link as above) it says: "The young growth in spring, even on mature plants, is frost-tender and so it is best to grow the plants in a position sheltered from the early morning sun". That doesn't make obvious sense, if any at aall. It can make sense imagining that if the cell walls are frozen, better thaw the plant / animal slowly. But I wouldn't think that you get a blazing hot sun straight away in the morning after a night's frost, unless in very special circumstances which are not the point here. Nah, it just doesn't fit. And it sure wouldn't be the first cckup I find in pfaf (I like them but they ain't the foremost frontline on exactitude, must be said). So, what does that mean, "sheltered from the early morning sun"?Basicdesign (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be something to do with photoinhibition which is more of a problem when it is cold. 131.111.30.24 (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After all that, I think we have something close to consensus on splitting the article as per User:Guettarda's suggestion. Any further comments? Should the nut remain here, or move to Chestnut (nut)? Richard New Forest (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave the nut here as the dominant usage. Guettarda (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the section "medicinal properties" from the article, since it appears to me to be alternative medicine presented as if it were well-established applications.

Particular comments:

• The first paragraph is phrased like an advertisement, which is not appropriate on Wikipedia.
• The rest is a long "too good to be true" list of ailments that chestnuts are supposed to cure.
• What I find disturbing is the use of phrases like "is used to..." and "can be useful", citing dictionaries and encyclopedias (which are not primary sources, just like Wikipedia isn't) and a patent application (which is no indication that it is actually being used).
• If someone feels that this information belongs in the article, it should be written as "in alternative medicine, chestnuts are used as ...". Other claims to medical properties should be accompanied with references to scientific sources; see WP:MEDRS.

Han-Kwang (t) 10:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the implementation of {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} on this article, because of the length of the reference list. Opinions, rejections? —bender235 (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that reference 48 ( The American Chestnut Returns. By Fred Thys, for WBUR news. July 18, 2008.) doesn't exist on its host site. I looked up the article in Internet Wayback and updated the reference. I don't know if I need a pull date for the wayback or anything, so forgive me if I don't edit the reference correctly. NVM. I don't know how to edit references any more. Things have really changed since I last did anything. Here's the wayback link, though: http://web.archive.org/web/20080907065106/http://www.wbur.org/news/2008/78764_20080718.asp 96.248.6.39 (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Kestaneci chestnut vendor.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These examples are very trivial (and irrelevant) and the whole section should be deleted. Rwood128 (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Chestnut. 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/20080705113403/http://www.chestnuttree.net/ to http://www.chestnuttree.net/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080916230008/http://www.extension.umn.edu:80/yardandgarden/ygbriefs/h401chestnuts.html to http://www.extension.umn.edu/yardandgarden/ygbriefs/h401chestnuts.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509091414/http://www.apsnet.org/online/feature/chestnut/images/figure4.htm to http://www.apsnet.org/online/feature/chestnut/images/figure4.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513180502/http://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/research/leaves/future.html to http://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/research/leaves/future.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014174650/http://www.cnr.vt.edu:80/DENDRO/DENDROLOGY/syllabus/factsheet.cfm?ID=23 to http://www.cnr.vt.edu/DENDRO/DENDROLOGY/syllabus/factsheet.cfm?ID=23
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chestnutbrook.com.au/what-are-chestnuts.htmlWhat
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910104813/http://www.hesge.ch/eil/Pages/AG/actualites/doc/Chataigner/TexteConedera2.pdf to http://www.hesge.ch/eil/Pages/AG/actualites/doc/Chataigner/TexteConedera2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304080146/http://www.botany.unibe.ch/paleo/publications/reprints/VegetHistArchaeobot_13_161.pdf to http://www.botany.unibe.ch/paleo/publications/reprints/VegetHistArchaeobot_13_161.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.firenzeturismo.it/en_EN/other-typical-products/the-igp-mugello-sweet-chestnut.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://pageperso.aol.fr/sophieherisse/MarronsGlaces.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.salemboard.com/furniture/conservation.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820025958/http://www.forestry.ky.gov:80/programs/reforestation/Tree+Species+Information.htm to http://www.forestry.ky.gov/programs/reforestation/Tree+Species+Information.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140112143915/http://www.chew.hu/gesztenyepure/ to http://www.chew.hu/gesztenyepure/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.pays-beaumedrobie.com/fr/musee-chataign/uk-accueil-chataigne.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218170833/http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk:80/ancient-tree-forum/atfgallery/features.htm to http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk/ancient-tree-forum/atfgallery/features.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130616165133/http://www.istan.es/pagina.asp?cod=298&idioma=ing to http://www.istan.es/pagina.asp?cod=298&idioma=ing
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121106143320/http://www.firenzeturismo.it/en/prodotti-tipici-toscani/the-igp-mugello-sweet-chestnut.html to http://www.firenzeturismo.it/en/prodotti-tipici-toscani/the-igp-mugello-sweet-chestnut.html

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) 14:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Chestnut. 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://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160522200002/http://www.omnilogos.com/2015/06/chestnuts.html to http://www.omnilogos.com/2015/06/chestnuts.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713020710/http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx to http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.firenzeturismo.it/en_EN/other-typical-products/the-igp-mugello-sweet-chestnut.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090720235128/http://www.biodiv.gov.cn/images_biodiv/resources/economic-tree-en.htm to http://www.biodiv.gov.cn/images_biodiv/resources/economic-tree-en.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.salemboard.com/furniture/conservation.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forestry.ky.gov/programs/reforestation/Tree%2BSpecies%2BInformation.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pays-beaumedrobie.com/fr/musee-chataign/uk-accueil-chataigne.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121106143320/http://www.firenzeturismo.it/en/prodotti-tipici-toscani/the-igp-mugello-sweet-chestnut.html to http://www.firenzeturismo.it/en/prodotti-tipici-toscani/the-igp-mugello-sweet-chestnut.html

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) 05:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chestnut. 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/20090923175814/http://www1.unifi.it/ueresgen29/ds7.htm to http://www3.unifi.it/ueresgen29/ds7.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.prochedevous-enligne.com/index.cgi?numero=110&type=article&pageid=846&archives=1

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) 14:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr: What does "the larger table overemphasizes a minor crop" mean? With the addition of the 2020 data Shoefly's table would be a good addition to the page. Invasive Spices (talk) 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The large table under Production in this edit not only shows a lot of low-value production numbers which are out of date by 6 years, but also occupies a substantial amount of article space for a crop which must be among the smallest in the world recorded for edible nuts (2300 tonnes in 2020, nearly all in China). The smaller table is sufficient, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Zefr (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Invasive Spices:@Zefr: Please revert the larger table deletion. The smaller FAO table you posted instead contains erroneous data. Bolivia does not grow chestnuts. They grow brazil nuts, called castaña del Brasil. Even the FAO miss classifies that. If a crop is relatively large or small should not matter for inclusion. Seeing chestnut production trends over time is encyclopedic and valuable for growers like myself. It was a lot of work to put this table together and I'd hate to see data on national production trend changes removed like that. There is an interesting story behind production increases and declines in each of these countries. Once you post, I can add the 2020 FAO data to get the table data up to date. Thanks, Shoefly (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]