Talk:Pumpkin: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

By /

 

Line 63: Line 63:

Add “Not made of cheese” by the cheese pumpkin. [[User:DavidSayzHiiiii|DavidSayzHiiiii]] ([[User talk:DavidSayzHiiiii|talk]]) 17:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Add “Not made of cheese” by the cheese pumpkin. [[User:DavidSayzHiiiii|DavidSayzHiiiii]] ([[User talk:DavidSayzHiiiii|talk]]) 17:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] ”’Not done:”’ it’s not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a [[WP:EDITXY|”change X to Y” format]] and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!– Template:ESp –> [[User:Cannolis|Cannolis]] ([[User talk:Cannolis|talk]]) 18:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] ”’Not done:”’ it’s not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a [[WP:EDITXY|”change X to Y” format]] and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!– Template:ESp –> [[User:Cannolis|Cannolis]] ([[User talk:Cannolis|talk]]) 18:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

== Changing “ask8tasquash” ==

the article reads

“(The English word squash is derived from a Massachusett word, variously transcribed as askꝏtasquash,[9] ashk8tasqash, or, in the closely related Narragansett language, askútasquash.)[10]”

source 10 is martian Webster dictionary – no references to the double-o spelling. Definitely no reference to the character 8/Ȣ being used as a substitute. I then checked number 9, which does give the transliteration using “ꝏ” but certainly doesn’t use the character “8/Ȣ.” this is not modern convention nor is it a part of the convention of the source for this etymology. Therefore I will change the sentence to read:

“The English word squash is derived from a Massachusett word, askꝏtasquash,[9] or, in the closely related Narragansett language, askútasquash.)”

I will leave it to a more skilled editor to decide to modernize the transliteration or not since it is born out by the Natick dictionary referenced.

I would also point out the character referenced can be found in the Wiktionary page here:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%EA%9D%8F

” [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2025-31794-11|&#126;2025-31794-11]] ([[User talk:&#126;2025-31794-11|talk]]) 04:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Today I saw that this article is not added to the category “Foods”. I thought this would be a problem, so I fixed this, because pumpkins are foods. EditJuice (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Pumpkin pies, pumpkin bread, pumpkin rolls, pumpkin soup and pumpkin butter are all potential use of culinary pumpkins. However, not all varieties of pumpkins are equally tasty, and therefore usable as food, the “jack-o-lantern” type probably being the worst. Dhrm77 (talk)

@Oknazevad: I looked over the recent edit history and it looks like this is gonna be a most ridiculous back-and-forth edit spat as I expect people will keep changing it to “chucking” a few times per month. The page Pumpkin chucking links to “chucking,” so other than just the funnies I don’t see why keeping it as “Pumpkin chunkin(g)” is worth the confusion. If you’re deadset on keeping it (as it is hilarious), it could be a subject of a ridiculous edit notice . Unburnable (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t my fight, but to whomever wants to keep “chunkin”, you could add a <!– This is not a typo –> note in the code of the page. It should limit some back end forth edits. Dhrm77 (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not “dead set”, just the term as I’ve known and seen it used in third-party. The other article was moved without discussion some years back, apparently trying to differentiate between the generic activity and the largest such event, held annually in Delaware, a distinction without basis and a POV motive. A proper discussion would probably result in that move being reverted. oknazevad (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In principal, it’s a good idea. In practice, it’s a mess. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so just copying from within Wikipedia without references does not make the section sourced at all. Adding entire cell entries with nothing except a citation needed tag, not even a claim needing a cite, is just bad editing, too. Either source the material and complete the chart, or it stays out as unsourced and challenged material. The WP:ONUS is on the person adding the material. oknazevad (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not doing what you describe, and I don’t appreciate my work being called “bad editing.” You are not taking the time to learn what I am doing, nor are you all that familiar with the content of this topic. Your approach, reverting first instead of contacting me, is not in the spirit of Wikipedia.
MarkWKidd (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not address me with imperatives like “Talk page. Now.” That is completely inappropriate, and I hope it is the result of a language or cultural barrier.
MarkWKidd (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuously adding uncited material while also adding citation needed tags to the same material. You don’t see how that is a problem? You completely fail to address my concerns and barreling through regardless. More importantly, continuously edit warring to restore unsourced material when challenged is very much problematic, uncollaborative behavior, so don’t lecture me about the spirit of Wikipedia. oknazevad (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not doing what you describe, and based on your messages you have no willingness to discuss this issue. I have an ongoing commitment to the articles I have edited, and I am working to correct the citations in this article and add new ones. Conversations should not be initiated by reverting, and certainly individual critiques shouldn’t be made without reviewing my editing history. I do not believe you are acting in good faith or in the interest of improving this article. MarkWKidd (talk)
I have had this article watchlisted and have been editing it for seven years. So perhaps you should check the edit history yourself.
And yes, that is what you’re doing. It’s the same sort of behavior as putting in a section header and an expand section tag without putting in any actual content. It’s demanding others do the work for you, even if that’s not your intent. If you don’t have sufficient info for the origin column (which is where the problem lays) leave the column out until you can source it. Use your sandbox to do the work, not the live article. The fact that you don’t see the issue is the problem I have with the edits. I don’t think they remotely improve the article at all. oknazevad (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am in no way demanding that you or any others do work for me, including in an implicit way by using citation needed tags. I have familiarized myself with your edit history. I assert that you are misapplying Wikipedia guidelines, and are doing so with an adversarial attitude that contributes nothing to this article. I ask that you please leave me alone, and I suggest that you take a break from watching this article if you are not interested in improving it, which is my only purpose. In the meantime I will continue reading the citations that are included to check for their applicability, adding new citations, and adding content that is relevant to this article. MarkWKidd (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“Often called butternut squash, has a pumpkin-like flavor when eaten.”

perhaps it tastes like a pumpkin because it is a pumpkin which is why it’s in this cultivar list. Can someone make that sentence less dumb please?2601:1C2:5000:8CC7:282F:5A28:2697:A136 (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Next time, WP:JUSTDOIT. Zefr (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already edited the page to include this info but it got reverted because I used Guinness World Records as a source.
Is this appropriate: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/09/pumpkin-world-record-travis-gienger-half-moon-bay ThatOneDoge (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is vague on when this plant was first cultivated, and I agree with another thread that the word “pumpkin” has a Native American origin, not a Greek one. The article [Concurbita] states clearly that this genus of plants is from the Americas. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric Wastrel Way (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add to Category:Mexican cuisine. 185.46.115.144 (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Same rationale as Avocado, copypasting: Typically raw goods (like fruit) aren’t added to cuisine pages. It is definitely used in dishes in Mexican cuisine, and those dishes are under the category, but Avocados as a whole?? No. I also don’t see a precedence in other fruit articles, such as Strawberry or Tomato. jolielover♥talk 13:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add “Not made of cheese” by the cheese pumpkin. DavidSayzHiiiii (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it’s not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a “change X to Y” format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the article reads

“(The English word squash is derived from a Massachusett word, variously transcribed as askꝏtasquash,[9] ashk8tasqash, or, in the closely related Narragansett language, askútasquash.)[10]”

source 10 is martian Webster dictionary – no references to the double-o spelling. Definitely no reference to the character 8/Ȣ being used as a substitute. I then checked number 9, which does give the transliteration using “ꝏ” but certainly doesn’t use the character “8/Ȣ.” this is not modern convention nor is it a part of the convention of the source for this etymology. Therefore I will change the sentence to read:

“The English word squash is derived from a Massachusett word, askꝏtasquash,[9] or, in the closely related Narragansett language, askútasquash.)”

I will leave it to a more skilled editor to decide to modernize the transliteration or not since it is born out by the Natick dictionary referenced.

I would also point out the character referenced can be found in the Wiktionary page here:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%EA%9D%8F

” ~2025-31794-11 (talk) 04:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version