Talk:Cavendish banana
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
There's no reason to have "banana" in the entry name. If you look at Category:en:Apple cultivars, Category:en:Cherry cultivars, and Category:en:Pear cultivars, you won't see "apple", "cherry" or "pear" in the names except in a few lowercase descriptive ones. For instance, an eating apple isn't an apple named "eating". For this cultivar, though, it really is just a banana named "Cavendish". Chuck Entz (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the definition and etymology be merged into Cavendish, if this is being deleted ? -- 65.93.183.33 14:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep — Dentonius 08:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- What is the argument? Would it also apply to entries such as Braeburn apple, Bartlett pear and Bintje potato? --Lambiam 14:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- I assume that Cavendish banana would be the precursor to Cavendish. It's an empirical question whether a bare cultivar epithet is used and in what usage context(s). Because of the well-publicized vulnerability of the Cavendish to fast-spreading disease, Cavendish may be demonstrably part of general discourse, at least well-informed discourse. I'd expect Bartlett to be similar. I don't recognize the other two as common in the US. DCDuring (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- What is the argument? Would it also apply to entries such as Braeburn apple, Bartlett pear and Bintje potato? --Lambiam 14:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Obviously delete, thank you Chuck Entz for beating me to the punch. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Tentative keep. Attestations of Musa cavendishii (Lamb. ex Paxton) as a taxonomical name for this variety (see here) appear to precede any of Cavendish banana (like seen here), which in turn appear to precede uses of Cavendish in the sense of a banana variety, other than after a use in the same text of Cavendish banana (like here). This leads me to surmise that the designation Cavendish banana is essentially a calque of earlier Musa cavendishii (or, as its coiner Paxton spelled it, Mùsa Cavendíshii ) and as such originally non-transparent. Just Cavendish would then be short for Cavendish banana, much in the same sense that Bunsen is (also) short for Bunsen burner. --Lambiam 14:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Lambiam & DCDuring. The first attestation for Cavendish banana that I can find is from 1857, that is considerably earlier than the earliest attestations of bare Cavendish for the banana variety. Curiously, Herman Melville used Cavendish in the 1850s for a variety of tobacco and Cavendish tobacco is not difficult to attest for that period; possibly association of bare Cavendish with the tobacco prevented it from being used for the banana for a while.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Lambiam & DCDuring. The first attestation for Cavendish banana that I can find is from 1857, that is considerably earlier than the earliest attestations of bare Cavendish for the banana variety. Curiously, Herman Melville used Cavendish in the 1850s for a variety of tobacco and Cavendish tobacco is not difficult to attest for that period; possibly association of bare Cavendish with the tobacco prevented it from being used for the banana for a while.
- Keep. @Chuck Entz supported this entry adding info in 2017, what has caused the about-turn since then? DonnanZ (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- We all make masses of minor edits without stopping to analyze every aspect. Can you vouch for every entry which you've edited to switch out etyl tags? I've added or changed categories on literally tens of thousands of entries for English organism names, and I change what I notice, when I have time- but I usually don't make a rigorous analysis of every aspect. The idea is to make the entries easier to find, so that those who have the time and background to fix them see them listed in one place. In this case, I only started to consider the SOP nature of this when dealing with another, more obviously SOP term modeled after it.
- As for this rfd: I may be right, I may be wrong- but my category edits are totally irrelevant. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- OK, I have created entries I have forgotten about - until another editor edits them. It's nice to know they are noticed by somebody. DonnanZ (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept as originally nontransparent. bd2412 T 19:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)