Talk:Actinidia chinensis var. deliciosa

Kind of fruit

What kind of fruit is it? Pome, drupe, aggregate, etc.?71.199.198.30 14:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

History of the fruit in China?

Am I crazy, or is this article written as if China's history doesn't count?? The fruit was introduced to New Zealand and the West in the 19th century, but what about the history of the fruit in China? Did the Chinese really not even have a name for it?? 4.59.0.77 (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Variety talk

According to Wikipedia talk page in Actinidia chinensis paragraph 'Really a "variety"?' (as of 25th April 2024 and starting before 2019) actinidia deliciosa is not a variety of actinidia chinensis and this perhaps should be visible in its synonyms, to avoid confusing readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.78.181 (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 2 April 2025

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. – robertsky (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

---

Actinidia deliciosa → Actinidia chinensis var. deliciosa – Current accepted nomenclature, e.g. History of Kiwifruit: Evolution of a Global Crop (2023), GBIF, PoWO, NZOR. Prosperosity (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. The scope of the article includes other varieties, and there is no reason to exclude them. Andrewa (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Post move

@Andrewa: Hi Andrewa, I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. Which other varieties are described in the article? --Prosperosity (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The other varieties mentioned are Actinidia deliciosa var. deliciosa, Actinidia deliciosa var. chlorocarpa, Actinidia deliciosa var. longipila and Actinidia deliciosa var. coloris. Now it is noted in the article that these variety names are widely rejected, but this also means that these names do appear in the literature. If so, it seems to me that they should be included in the scope of this article. Andrewa (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@Andrewa: I agree. That makes perfect sense, and would be appropriate content for an article located at Actinidia chinensis var. deliciosa. The entirely of what used to be referred to as Actinidia deliciosa is a clade within Actinidia chinensis, so historical divisions and designations are still relevant content for an article that uses the currently accepted name. --Prosperosity (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, I have as a start created a redirect at Actinidia chinensis var. deliciosa and labelled it R from alternate name which may not be the correct template, see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. Andrewa (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@Andrewa: How does it look now? I've cleaned up the taxonomy section with better sources, showing that Actinidia deliciosa is not modern nomenclature, and have found sources which synonymises the other listed varieties. Prosperosity (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Andrewa: I've added a source specifically stating that chlorocarpa, longipila and coloris have been synonymised with Actinidia chinensis var. deliciosa. Do you have any objections to the article being moved now? --Prosperosity (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 6 May 2025

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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

---

Actinidia deliciosa → Actinidia chinensis var. deliciosa – Currently accepted name since 2007 (Flora of China, History of Kiwifruit: Evolution of a Global Crop (2023), GBIF, PoWO, NZOR); result of discussion at WikiProject Plants. Concerns by editor in previous move request addressed (added additional sources showing that these varieties had been synonymised with Actinidia chinensis var. deliciosa and not Actinidia chinensis, so any content relating to these is appropriate for Actinidia chinensis var. deliciosa). Prosperosity (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Actinidia chinensis var. deliciosa is the currently accepted name for this taxon. In general I'm pretty leery in general of having articles for botanical varieties, but when I learned a scientific name for the kiwifruit I was eating, it was Actinidia deliciosa, recent sources do not support that as a separate species. Wikipedia should have an article that addresses Actinidia deliciosa, but that should not be the title of an article. Plantdrew (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Most, if not all, recent sources accept Actinidia chinensis var. deliciosa as the name for this taxon. In addition to the sources above, World Flora Online also treats the kiwifruit as a variety of Actinidia chinensis.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support. This is clearly a straightforward move in line with recent taxonomy. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom and other commenters. I appreciate the nominator's clear presentation of the issue and thoughtful approach to resolving issues with the prior RM. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

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.