Jump to content

Talk:Daikon

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

Better lead picture?

[edit]

The lead picture is of a daikon rather than other varieties. I have a picture of at least the Korean and Japanese radishes together. (sourcing the Chinese is difficult) I think it would be nice to actually show a bit of the range in the lead picture so it's not Japanese-only influenced, especially since shape varies, etc... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucurbita for example, shows more than one in the lead image.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page split

[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 not to split the article.

This article covers at least two subjects: true daikons and long white radishes. I also see watermelon radish, which is an Asian radish but not a long white. Are watermelon radishes considered daikons? --Ityoppyawit (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The scope is a bit of a mess. Watermelon radishes shouldn't be consider daikons, in my opinion. Plantdrew (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew, Ityoppyawit, and 211.205.71.197:: Japanese radish has been changed from a redirect to an article as a deliberate WP:CFORK. It seems to me that if any fork is to occur, that this current page should remain about the true daikon (WP:PTOPIC...?), with a brief pointer that the long white radish is sometimes referred to as a "daikon" in the West, and Japanese radish should revert to a redirect. (opinion struck after reading some more, but this CFORK seems to be questionable, and requires consensus) ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew, Ityoppyawit, and Hydronium Hydroxide: I moved some paragraphs on Japanese varieties to the Japanese radish article. I guess Sakurajima radish might not be considered daikon (if the name refers to "long white radish"), but the Sakurajima radish page says it is called Sakurajima daikon in Japan. Perhaps the new article should be named "daikon", and this one should be given a neutral, more descriptive name? --Epulum (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has reminded me of a bit of the Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia guide: Each article is on one topic (rather than a word and its definition, which belong, if at all, in Wikimedia's dictionary project called Wiktionary). The relevance here (in my opinion) is that there are several distinct radishes which probably each deserve their own article, and then there's also this problematic word "daikon" which is used imprecisely (in English) to refer to more than one of these radishes. Another quote, this one from Wikipedia:Scope: When the name of an article is a term that refers to several related topics in secondary reliable sources, primary topic criteria should be followed to determine if any of the uses of that term is the primary topic. If so, then the scope of the article should be limited to, or at least primarily, cover that topic. For example, the article "Cat" is limited in scope to the primary topic for cat, the domestic cat (which is a redirect to "Cat"), even though lions and tigers are considered to be "cats" in the broad sense of that term. Perhaps "Daikon" can be treated analogously. Hope that's helpful to someone's thought process (I arrived here from WikiProject Vietnam and thought I'd share my two cents). Jake-low (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that this is absolutely the point: an article should be about a topic, not a word – the topics in the case of plants being taxa, whether wild taxa, like species, or cultivated taxa, like cultivar groups and cultivars. I don't know enough about this topic to be sure, but I suspect that "diakon", as used in English, should be the title of a set index article (SIA), redirecting to appropriate topic-based articles, just as we normally do with English names that refer to more than one plant. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think each variety should have a section in this article. If the contents in one section grow enough to support a standalone article, then one can be created. Otherwise, we need to remember that most people coming to the article are looking for information, and are not likely experts on different varieties. We need to gear the article toward a general audience, not daikon experts. Look at Orange (fruit) as an example. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Different cultivars aren't necessarily distinct subjects. If there is nothing particularly encyclopedic about one variety vs another, so as to carry a full article in its own right, then they should just be kept on the same page. Ham Pastrami (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article Japanese radish that is supposed to be the "true radish" article is just a stub. This "daikon" article here is much more detailed, even regarding true Japanese daikons. In fact even the radish article has more information on true Japanese daikons than the Japanese radish article that is a separate article. It doesn't help that typical Western radishes are called Raphanus raphanistrum sativus on that page, while daikons are called Raphanus sativus on this page, when both of them are actually the same species (see Raphanus raphanistrum for the wild variety of radishes, which is either a separate species from domesticated radishes and daikons which are the "sativus" SPECIES of Raphanus, or a species that domesticated radishes and daikons are the "sativus" SUBspecies Raphanus raphanistrum of). There is disagreement among Wikipedia pages about the species classification of radishes.
Anyway I don't see any scientific consensus for daikons being a separate subspecies, they are just one particular variety of radish. I would suggest MERGING the Japanese radish article BACK INTO this Daikon article and undoing the splitting that has already been done, and then improving this article to specifically be about daikons and pointing out that the other varieties of radish mentioned, if they are mentioned at all, are OTHER VARIETIES and are not daikons. But all in the same article. There is no need for more than one Daikon article. And Daikon and Japanese radish mean the same exact thing, they need to be merged back again, that Japanese radish stub is a waste of time, time that would be better spent improving this Daikon article. --Yetisyny (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an example we have an article on the potato, but also articles for lots of different cultivars of potato, one wouldn't argue that significant cultivars of potatoes shouldn't have their own articles, nor because the cultivar we are must familiar with are Maris Pipers dismiss Vitelottes as not being true potatoes (everyone knows that potatoes are white fleshe d with brown skins, how can a purply thing be a potato). The true Japanese daikon is but one cultivar of a root vegetable prevalant throughout asia, however because daikon became the default American English loanword for this root, it has the privilege of being used as the article name, hence the appearance of all the other varieties of cultivar in this article. I am in favour of keeping this article as the main article for the root, and because it is a significant cultivar, keeping the Japanese Daikon article. However, may I also suggest that a lot of confusion could be avoided if this article was moved to the namespace Mooli, using the Indian name for this root. This has the benefit that its where the ancestral form of the root came from, is the prefered name for Indian and many British English users, and differentiates the family as a whole from a popular but specific cultivar.--KTo288 (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2017 (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.

Requested move 1 January 2018

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. If there is a problem with too many mislinks to this title, I'd think Daikon radish, a redirect created in April 2004‎, would be better than Mooli. That gives a better clue what this is about, as many more people know what a "radish" is than know what a "daikon" or "mooli" is. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Daikon → Mooli – It was suggested by KTo288 during the closed discussion above:

However, may I also suggest that a lot of confusion could be avoided if this article was moved to the namespace Mooli, using the Indian name for this root. This has the benefit that its where the ancestral form of the root came from, is the prefered name for Indian and many British English users, and differentiates the family as a whole from a popular but specific cultivar.

— KTo288
@In ictu oculi: You don't know if the word "daikon" is used to refer to long whites or Japanese radishes. Many hits suggest Japanese cuisine context too. --Bomnamul (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about Longipinnatus here yes? Daikon + Longipinnatus is still used more than 4x more than Mooli + Longipinnatus In ictu oculi (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: Japanese radishes are one of longipinnatus, aren't they? I don't think whether daikon is the most widely used word or not is the point here. The word has multiple meaning, and causes quite a lot of confusion. Many Chinese/Korean sources for example often compare daikon (Japanese radish) and Chinese/Korean radish. Those comparisons also often contain the word longipinnatus because Japanse, Chinese, and Korean radishes are all longipinnatus. --Bomnamul (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So how does moving from a more common Japanese word to a less common Hindi word help? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a disambiguation page for daikon. Letting the polysemous word redirect to Daikon (disambiguation) may help reducing the confusion greatly. (Also I'd more liked to talk about the American English common word "daikon" and the Bitish English common word "mooli" rather than the Japanese word "daikon" and the Hindi word "mooli".) Plus, I'm also fine with Long white radish which is neutral and very intuitive. --Bomnamul (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead Image

[edit]

Just dropping in that I changed the lead image to be more comprehensive. I spent a lot of money and time and risked my personal health to take the picture. I am hoping a more comprehensive picture might help it be more than just Japanese-minded. Past pictures have only shown ONLY Japanese, etc versions.

BTW, nationalism over this page is dumb. The widest position is white radish, but that clearly failed. Let's work to make this page more inclusive, instead.--KimYunmi (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daikon&oldid=1212597321"