Wikipedia

Talk:Apple

Good articleApple has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 31, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
January 31, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 2, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
March 27, 2008Good article reassessmentListed
August 22, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 18, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 2, 2011Good article reassessmentKept
September 4, 2013Good article reassessmentKept
August 5, 2024Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Deletion discussion underway for Isaac Newton's apple tree

[edit]

If interested Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Newton's apple tree, and/or improve or disprove the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should breakdown of the types of carbohydrates be included?

[edit]

Glucose, fructose, sucrose or whatever.

I came here looking for it. But I checked orange and banana and that information isn't included either. The Fig article does breakdown glucose and fructose levels.

Maybe a link to Table 1 in the Fructose article. I'd add that specific link if I knew how. A link to fructose wouldn't do it. And although Table 1 is referred to, it's not labeled. MtnBiker (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The USDA source for the nutrition table data doesn't give separate values for sugars in the general "apple, raw" analysis. The breakdown is generally about 8 g of fructose and 2 g each for glucose and sucrose, as shown for 5 apple varietals in the USDA Foundation data.
Data for individual sugars are not typically shown in fruit and vegetable articles, possibly because this detail is not of general interest to most encyclopedia users. Zefr (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote

[edit]

It's absurd that there isn't a hatnote for Apple Inc. Yes, it is only one of several companies named Apple, but it is the most important and likely to be sought by several order of magnitudes. The purpose of a hatnote is to aid with navigation, and forcing everyone that wants the obvious most likely other topic to go through a disambiguation page is ridiculous. Ladtrack (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing. You'll see that the matter has been discussed repeatedly before. Policy on hatnotes and the linked disambiguation pages is basically to keep things simple, which is why the arrangement has remained as it is. Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that it was discussed once above, where someone tried to add one and was told, not in so many words, "don't". Frankly, I think that any benefit towards simplicity is massively outweighed by the significant drawback of sending a lot of people to a disambiguation page when we know perfectly well where they want to go. Ladtrack (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have evidence that the lack of Apple Inc. in the hatnote is a significant problem, kindly provide that. Otherwise your various assertions that the situation is "absurd" are unsupported opinions with no weight in a discussion. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't have to give proof, it's so obvious, but fine. Here's pageviews for the disambiguation pages for ten fruits. Do you notice any that may be an outlier, perhaps? Why do you reckon that might be? Look, this article is primary over the company, which has four times the pageviews, on the basis of long-term significance. That's perfectly well and good. The thing is, some of those people are going to end up on this page, and forcing them through a disambiguation page when we know where they want to go is stupid. Even if we're very conservative and say less than half of the extra people that went to Apple (disambiguation) want the company, we're inconveniencing, by my estimate, over 800 people a month that end up on the wrong page, and why? To make the hatnote look nice? Ladtrack (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If your assumptions are correct, then it means that the lack of a hatnote directly to Apple Inc. is inconveniencing a little over 1% of the viewers of Apple each month by having to click twice rather than once because the average monthly views for Apple is around 72,000. Is one percent really a big deal? And I'll also note that it goes the same the other way. Apple Inc. also has a hatnote that just links to the disambiguation page. If this makes sense then it ought to be changed on both. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is one percent really a big deal? Yes. For one thing, my estimate is probably very low; I purposely was very conservative in order to get the least generous reasonable estimate, and on top of that, a significant proportion of people will search for the company after ending up at the wrong page (about a thousand a month according to WikiNav, making the company the sixth highest outgoing page out of Apple), and some will just give up looking for the right page entirely, which is even worse. If I had to guess at a more accurate estimate, I'd say probably over 3,000. For another thing, think about this as an actual number and not a percentage. 3,000 people a month is a lot of people. Even 1,000 people is a lot of people. We're inconveniencing a lot of people, for basically purely aesthetic reasons. Why shouldn't we help them?
And I'll also note that it goes the same the other way. Apple Inc. also has a hatnote that just links to the disambiguation page. If this makes sense then it ought to be changed on both. Nobody that wants the fruit would accidentally end up at Apple Inc., since the fruit is not called "Apple, Inc.", so there's no need for a hatnote to Apple there. On the other hand, people that want the company would visit Apple because the company is widely referred to as just "Apple", so there needs to be a hatnote. Similarly, Avatar has a hatnote to Avatar (2009 film), as the more viewed topic, but there's no hatnote the other way because nobody would expect the Hindu topic at "Avatar (2009 film)". Ladtrack (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, no. It's a very quick lookup process, far faster than searching in an old paper-based encyclopedia; and anyone who types "Apple" into Wikipedia's search box gets Apple Inc right there as the second option in the menu that at once appears. It's no problem, and we should stop wasting time here on this talk thread. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could say this about basically all hatnotes, and yet we still have them for a reason. Not all readers use the search bar. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say most don't. We know that about a thousand a month aren't, at a minimum. This is such a basic navigational aid that I'm legitimately shocked it's getting such pushback, and for what? Because the top of the article can look a little prettier? Ladtrack (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your guesstimates are no basis for action, nor frankly is it our business. Hatnotes are required to be short. Any visitor can use either the search box, a link from Google or any other website (which will probably take them straight to where they want to go), or any link here on Wikipedia (most of which will also take them straight there), or a disambiguation page or hatnote, all of which are very quickly navigated. As I say, you're wasting your time, and everyone else's here. Please stop. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you're so hellbent on making readers' navigational experience worse, but you are correct that I am clearly wasting my time, so fine, I'll stop. Ladtrack (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"🫝" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect 🫝 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 28 § 🫝 until a consensus is reached. Xeroctic (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 January 2026

[edit]
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW close. There is clear consensus that the fruit should remain the primary topic, but that a hatnote to Apple Inc. should be created on Apple. (non-admin closure) Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 11:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

– All-time page views show that Apple Inc. receives on average 3.6 times as many views as Apple, suggesting that is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by WP:PT1. On the other hand, the fruit has far greater long-term significance than the company. When a term has differing primary topics by pageviews and long-term significance, the consensus is usually that the term has no primary topic. In the past, this move request was opposed because the hatnote on Apple linked directly to Apple Inc., meaning that readers looking for the company from Apple would still only have to click once, while readers looking for the fruit would need an extra click. However, since the hatnote no longer directly links to the company, this move would save readers looking for the company one click, even if readers looking for the fruit would still need an extra click. Since the company receives more pageviews than the fruit, I think this is a good compromise. Greedycell (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Unless there's been some massive change to the long-term historical importance of Apple Inc. since April of 2024 that I must have missed in the news, this has been pointlessly litigated (both 'formally' as move requests, and as inferior attempts at changing the status quo) endlessly. Honestly, if the extraordinary effort of one extra click of a mouse button is that onerous, a hue and cry would have risen up from the masses at this horrific first-world problem, and the offices of Wikimedia would be overrun by protesters. There's more important things in the world than the latest release of the iPhone 357 Pro, now with smell-a-vision. Just no. Thank you for reading this far in an 'oppose' that nowhere directly addresses policy, because the policy arguments have been fully satisfied time and time again, so there is nothing new under the sun to share. And to head off any claims of incivility, I hold no ill-will on the matter. I would ask though whether Greedycell (talk · contribs) has read the archives. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have read the archives, and I think that the removal of the link to Apple Inc. from the hatnote, requiring readers on Apple an extra click to reach the article on the company, is a significant enough change to warrant a new move request. Greedycell (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm ambivalent on the hatnote, not having any strong objections, but, that's not what's being requested or discussed. I think opening a new discussion on the hatnote - perhaps as an RfC in order to bring more eyes to the matter - might be a better direction. A 'move's likelihood of success is vanishingly small. A hatnote - perhaps better odds. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose On long-term significance grounds. The company has tremendously less long-term significance than the fruit (which has massive societal, mythological/religious and health significance) and always will, regardless of how big it gets. I don't think the comparative pageviews of the company are enough to justify there being no primary topic, as the fruit also gets plenty of views. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Anastrophe. Srnec (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but with a qualifier, why not the first redirect to Apple, Inc.? – a simple addition to ease a moment for the global Apple multitude. Zefr (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per long-term significance, but the company should be in the hatnote. Jessintime (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The same move was proposed in 2024 and unanimously opposed at that time; nothing has changed since. 162 etc. (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The link to Apple Inc. was removed from the hatnote on the top of Apple, so something has changed. Greedycell (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've restored the old hatnote that included the direct link to Apple Inc. That should never have been changed. Station1 (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I do note that per a November 2025 discussion above, User:Chiswick Chap argued strongly in favour of removing the direct link.
    I personally believe that Apple Inc. should be directly linked from the hatnote; it is a very popular article, and it is not at all unlikely that somebody typing "Apple" would be seeking it.
    My objection to the proposed move remains. 162 etc. (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think it's quite reasonable to link the company directly from the hatnote. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:31, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per long-term significance. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2026 (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.