Talk:Avocado/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2016

This edit request to Avocado has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

It says that it is originally from south Mexico. However that's not correct, there chronicles from the time of the Spanish colonisation describing the fruit in both Mexico and South America, check this interesting compilation https://prezi.com/9o3nqiz5mfak/avocados-are-native-to-mexico-central-and-south-america-th/

and the British Encyclopedia refers the same, it is native from Mexico to South America, not only Mexico https://www.britannica.com/plant/avocado

193.102.79.10 (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to add, in a book from 1605, from Garcilazo de la Vega, already describes the existence of avocados in South America

http://www.danper.com/blog/la-palta-beneficios-y-exportacion/

193.102.79.10 (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Fre-Sha-Va-Ca-Do

The vine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 34.224.3.226 (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Avocado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

All 4 check as ok. --Zefr (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2017

This edit request to Avocado has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

There's a misformat under the Culinary Uses header. Cursuviam (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Done Thanks for catching that. I have fixed it. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 00:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2017

This edit request to Avocado has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

I request that the information about avocados being a berry be changed to avocados being a drupe, because berries do not have a hard endocarp but drupes do. In fact, check your own wikipedia page and you will find avocado classified as a drupe. 168.28.34.145 (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Your question is reasonable and the technical definition of berry vs. drupe requires close review of the internal anatomy of the avocado fruit to grasp the explanation that it is actually a single-seeded berry, explained here. Perhaps the key explanation from that source is: "Drupes are characterized by having a fleshy mesocarp but a tough-leathery or bony endocarp. They are said to have "stones" or "pits" rather than seeds (example: peaches)," where avocados do not have a leathery endocarp (it is non-existent with a smooth, imperceptible transition from seed to flesh). If you search for "avocado botany berry", you'll find numerous explanations (the majority, imo) supporting the berry definition. On the WP drupe page, is this dealing with the fine difference. I think we have to make the explanation as simple as possible for our readers. I'll try to improve the text and replace the archived URL with the more direct link above, plus add a ref. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Avocado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Fruit type

It's a drupe - berries, by definition, have more than 1 seed. HughDanielWilson (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@HughDanielWilson: There is no single definition of berry (or drupe). Avocados lack a stony endocarp, which is required in most definitions of drupe. On the other hand, Ilex fruits have multiple seeds, each with a stony endocarp. The fleshy husk in Juglandaceae fruits is derived from bracts, not ovary tissue; if drupe is defined as having a fleshy layer derived from the ripened ovary, walnuts aren't drupes. Nature doesn't fit neatly into botanical definitions of fruits types; there are gray areas at the edges. Plantdrew (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The definition for berry is quite clear and conspicuous, it’s a multi-seeded fruit. Guacamole is derived from the mesocarp of a drupe, as is coir. An atypical drupe for sure, but, certainly not a berry. HughDanielWilson (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

HughDanielWilson. Our two references under Botany describe the avocado as a single-seeded berry, mainly on the basis of an imperceptible endocarp, as is characteristic of the interface between seed(s) and mesocarp in berries. Can you comment on those interpretations please? --Zefr (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I regard a stony endocarp as the critical element in defining a drupe. Hugh apparently regards multiple seeds as the critical element in defining a berry. Given the existence of single seeded fleshy fruits without a stony endocarp, my impression is that it is more common to account for them by allowing berries to have single seeds than it is to allow drupes not to have a stony endocarp. Spjut's Systematic Treatment of Fruit Types doesn't mention seed number in the definition of "bacca", and includes Persea as an example of a bacca. I do note that Persea still runs into problems with Spjut's definition: "thin outer skin-like layer, collapsing when removed from sarcocarp"; avocado skins are fairly rigid and don't collapse (perhaps that makes avocados pepos?).

The fundamental point again, is that fruit types have multiple definitions. Watson & Dallwitz call Lauraceae fruits "drupaceous or baccate". Flora of China says Lauraceae bear "a drupe or a berry". Flora of North America goes with "drupe". Plantdrew (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2018

This edit request to Avocado has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

The plant was introduced to Spain in 1601, Indonesia around 1750, Mauritius in 1780, Brazil in 1809, the United States mainland in 1825, South Africa and Australia in the late 19th century, and Israel in 1908.[9] In the United States, the avocado was introduced to Florida and Hawaii in 1833 and in California in 1856.[9]

please change (Israel in 1908) to (Palestine in 1908) because Israel was not established until 1948 46.249.251.29 (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but Indonesia, Maritius, Brazil, South Africa, and Australia all weren't established/independent by those dates, and Hawaii wasn't of the US. I think the point of the line is to note the widespread geographic introduction of the avocado, not delve into the political issues of each era. I think a larger issue is why Florida doesn't count as mainland US, despite becoming a territory in 1821. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

although these political entities where not independent at these times, however geographically they where known by that name. whereas in the case of Israel, pre 1948 and for the entirety of the common era the area was known as Palestine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.249.251.29 (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Nihlus 20:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Persea fruit, continued

The fruit type for both Lauraceae and Persea is defined by the Flora of North America as a drupe. Fruits, by the way, are well defined. The issue here might be a bit confused by domestication in that, like the almond, the endocarp has been reduced by human selection. Again, a berry - by definition - is multi-seeded. HughDanielWilson (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@HughDanielWilson: Fruit types are indeed well defined; that is, many authorities have offered many definitions of different types of fruit, which differ in their precise wording. Berries are commonly, but not universally defined as having multiple seeds. Berberis species have differing numbers of seeds, but I've never come across a Berberis thunbergii fruit with more than one seed. Flora of North America describes the fruits of this species as "berries".

Let's try a definition for another fruit type. Flora of North America defines drupes as "Fleshy, indehiscent and derived from a single, superior, simple or compound ovary; having a soft outer wall (exocarp and mesocarp) and an osseous inner stone (endocarp) containing the seed(s) (usually only one)" (see here). Whoops. What do you call single-seeded fleshy, indehiscent fruit derived from single INFERIOR ovary (let's not worry about the endocarp for now). There are a bunch of Myrtaceae that fit this description, such as Syzygium cumini. Flora of China calls Syzygium fruits drupaceous, but they are presumably using a different definition than FNA.

The more qualifiers (e.g. "inferior ovary", "multi-seeded") you add to more precisely define the usual development and morphology of a particular fruit type, the more edge cases you get that don't fit into any defined fruit type. There are several solutions. You can use relativistic adjectives such as baccate or drupaceous. You can admit dozens and dozens of highly specialized fruit types (which leads to terms such as "balausta" which is used only for a single domesticated species and its wild ancestor). Or you go with less strictly defined fruit types and use qualified statements for typical, but not universal features (e.g. "berries usually have multiple seeds"). Plantdrew (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Persea - fruit type

Systematic botany is the oldest science and, of all structural elements, the gynoecium is among the most important in terms of those variables that define lineages. So, fruit terminology is ancient and well established, especially for those trained in systematics/morphology. Any treatment of Persea that identifies the fruit as a ‘berry’ is in conspicuous error.

HughDanielWilson (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2018

This edit request to Avocado has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

201.242.158.137 (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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. You have not made any request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Leaves as cuisine ingredients and food products?

Moved from a discussion on user talk pages. --Zefr (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello. You said: Hi, I saw you reverted my edit on Avocado, saying "Spam source; unconventional use". As for source, I'll find a better citation, although it would have been more appropriate to just change it to "citation needed". But what do you mean by "unconventional use"? This is a common spice in Mexican cooking; I can even get it at any Mexican grocery up here in New England. Not sure why the common-ness of the use would even have any bearing here. -- Phyzome (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't find a better WP:RS source for either the cuisine ingredient or the application. The source was definitely a commercial one, WP:PROMO. --Zefr (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, that doesn't actually address my questions, so I'm just going to go ahead and put my text back with a different source. Please come talk to me before removing it again. Also, I'm moving this conversation back here; I don't know why you moved it to my talk page. -- Phyzome (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Phyzome: I did answer your question about "unconventional use", as there are no secondary sources or market products I know for eating avocado leaves, extracts, or powders; please follow WP:RS. Under WP:BRD, bring your evidence to the Avocado Talk page first. I'm moving this discussion there. --Zefr (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is a source mentioning using leaves as a spice. I have other books that mention this as well, but they aren't available online. Plantdrew (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2018

This edit request to Avocado has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Change 'The fruit of the plant, also called an avocado (or avocado pear or alligator pear), is botanically a large berry containing a single large seed known as a "pit" or a "stone".' To 'The fruit of the plant, also called an avocado (or avocado pear or alligator pear), is botanically a large single-seeded berry.' This change is requested based on the original source (http://ucavo.ucr.edu/General/FruitBerry.html) which lists an avocado as a single-seeded berry, and the Berry wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry) which states that berries do not have pits or stones. Natebrunette (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2018

This edit request to Avocado has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

108.24.111.204 (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

people drug traffic avocados

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrong Nutritional value

There is a different in the Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz) between the US and the European databases. http://kalorien.de/Lebensmittel-anzeigen/126593/Avocado says that 100g has git around 220 kcal not 160 as written in the article.

Joda01 (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2019

This edit request to Avocado has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Reference #43 links to a blank page and the current statistic is outdated and needs to be updated. 73.34.248.80 (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Done, thanks. --Zefr (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Avocado and Igbo

Hi User:Zefr, I wanted to talk about the edit you reverted by User:Ckchurchyll, this addition to the "Regional Names" section:

In south-eastern Nigeria, the Igbo natives refer to it as "Ube" (Pear) or "Ube Bekee" (which literally means the 'white men's Pear'), in order to distinguish it from Dacryodes edulis which is natively known as "Ube Igbo" (Igbo pear or African Pear).

You said "Non-English not useful to this encyclopedia", which I disputed; and then "Unsourced; WP:WEIGHT for the English encyclopedia". The correct response for uncontroversial, uncited material is to either A) add a citation needed template, or B) add a citation. (Given that at least part of the information can be found in the paper "Formulation of Persea americana seed extract into tablet dosage", sourcing seems pretty low-effort here.) And WP:WEIGHT is about NPOV stuff, which is irrelevant here.

Anyway, we're now at the three-revert point. If you'd like to expand on your edit summaries, please go ahead. The only reason you gave that seems relevant is the "not relevant for en wiki", which I disagree with on its face but at least seems substantive. Barring any new developments in this thread, I'd like to go ahead and put it back. -- Phyzome (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Phyzome: I look at the issue in three ways, in rough order of importance: 1) as with many plant foods distributed worldwide, there are countless names in different regions and languages, few of which are relevant to the en wiki. Where does the list stop if some are allowed, and who is to confirm that the regional name is legitimate? 2) I see WP:WEIGHT as more of an issue to challenge minority views and trivia, as it states: "an article represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all..." Clear enough. 3) there was no WP:RS source for the Nigerian-African names, an absence consistent with the relative rarity of avocados and low production (not in the top 100 of production countries) in central-west Africa, and no mention of the name "ube" in a national news report. --Zefr (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

First off, is "ube" really Igbo for "pear" (Pyrus communis) or is it Igbo for Dacryodes edulis (with a qualifier now added to distinguish D. edulis and avocado)? While some plant articles include long lists of names in various languages, this isn't a good practice and those lists should be trimmed. It is appropriate to include names that are used in English as spoken in different countries where English is the predominant first language, or is used as a lingua franca (e.g. India, Philippines, Nigeria). Is "ube bekee" a name that is used in Nigerian English (and not just by native Igbo speakers, but also Hausa and Fulani)? Aside from national varieties of English, it is appropriate to include names in other languages that contributed to the etymology of the English term(s) (Nahuatl and Spanish in the case of avocado). It may be appropriate to include some names from other languages when a plant is native to the area where that language is spoken, or where it is of particular cultural importance (in the US, grocery stores specializing in international foods may sell plants used in e.g. Chinese cuisine under (transliteratons of) the Chinese names; it's helpful to readers to include the name they might see in the store in these cases). The names for avocados in Vietnam, China and Taiwan don't really belong in this article any more than the Igbo name. Plantdrew (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Like Alexander Pope said, 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, drink deep or taste not the pierian spring'. I would assume that User:Zefr, (a), did not intend to shoot himself in the foot by ignoring "Regional Names" of Avocado in a article in En Wiki. This assumption is predicated on the fact that the term 'regional' supposes that non-English nomenclature may surely exist. Besides, Wiki is by design made freely editable with the vision to expand knowledge and not suppress it. User:Zefr's discomfort ostensibly could be highlighted by the non-english name 'Ube' over which he is obviously un-knowledgeable about and thus either chose to wrestle with the sudden but unnerving realisation, or exhibit an unnatural proclivity to doubt. The legitimacy or otherwise of the word can only be questioned only by a contestant providing a suggestion or correction to the contrary but not otherwise. It is most unfair and unconscionable to simply censor what one simply does not understand, hence the aphorism: He who alleges or disagrees must disprove the contrary to be the case. (b) the Igbos are not 'tiny minorities' as alluded in the warped comment below. Free knowledge is hereby propagated the the Igbos are the third most largest ethnic group in the World's most populous black country, Nigeria. I am Onye Igbo providing just an authoritative content as any other contributor on the subject. The misguided suggestion that my edits are not 'widely held or widely supported views' based solely on a referenced article by Sun News Publication (written only in English and without reference to indigenous Nigerian names for avocado) shows how deep in the pit of fallacy of begging the question and utter contempt that dear User:Zefr fell. (c) Africa has over 3000 ethnic groups and the sub-heading 'Regional Names' unequivocally talks about the nomenclature of our delicious fruit under review in different places world over. The discussion was never about avocado production which is clearly besides the point. It is preposterous and ponderous to imagine an article that will be dedicated to identify and label avocado in over 3000 indigenous African language. Please, feel free to disagree.

As a consequence, I have been asked and I feel compelled to shamelessly provide answers to your posers: In Nigeria, avocado is referred to colloquially as 'avocado pear' or simply 'pear', stemming from our colonial relationship with the British. Therefore, any reference made to 'pear' means either Avocado Pear or D. edulis to an Igbo, who would further distinguish the two using the suffixes supplied, and our dear User:Zefr is insignificant to educate us or normatively postulate on what amounts to 'good practices', and his opinion is with due respect simply not required. Ube Bekee and Ube Igbo is tangentially tied to 'Regional Names' subheading and not not the overall content on Avocado. Pyrus communis is not indigenous to Africa and thus is a non-entity in the Nigerian lexicon.

Lastly, do not censor my Igbo language when you can barely speak, nor read, nor articulate nor understand anything off of it. Yes, Africans are mostly multi-linguists. Only greater linguists are called to challenge my contributions.Ckchurchyll (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ckchurchyll:, there were two of us commenting, Zefr and myself. You didn't answer my question about whether "ube bekee" is generally used in Nigerian English (e.g., by people whose first language is Yoruba or Hausa as well as those whose first language is Igbo). Since you seem to acknowledge that we wouldn't include names in 3000 languages, how many languages do you think we should include? According to List of languages by number of native speakers, there are 18 languages spoken in countries where English is an official language that are more widely spoken than Igbo (I'm looking at countries with English as an official language, as citizens are more likely to be bilingual in English and more likely to consult the English Wikipedia rather than a less-developed Wikipedia in their native language). If Igbo is included, presumably the other 18 more widely spoken languages should be as well.

I'm finding more Google hits for "ube oyibo" than "ube bekee". Why should we include "ube bekee" rather than "ube oyibo"? Plantdrew (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This seems like a discussion that has probably been had many times over, and maybe even in central locations (a plants wikiproject, perhaps?) if only I knew where to look. Lacking that, my instinct is this: Most of the non-English names for a plant will be represented easily as an interlanguage link, but anything more complicated (where the translation is ambiguous, illuminating, or contentious) or more linked to a region than a language might bear description in a Regional Names or Other Names section. If I wish to know the Gaelic word for Avocado, I can follow the "Gaeilge" link in the sidebar and see an article with "Abhacád" in bold. I can't read Gaelic, so I just trust that the word is unambiguous. And it's uninteresting, too—it's clearly the same word, just transliterated. But if I want to know the Igbo word for avocado—and not knowing Igbo—I would be hard-pressed to discover the "pear" ambiguity on my own. In any case, I don't see the Avocado page's Regional Names section ballooning out of control, and I'd prefer to welcome new information rather than delete out of caution. (And I don't think it's so urgent that a revert is called-for; I think there's WP:NORUSH given that no vandalism or critical information is involved.) -- Phyzome (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, @Plantdrew:, I'm going to put back the regional names you deleted after I opened this discussion. Please refrain from removing them again until we've actually had a chance to talk about it, OK? -- Phyzome (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: Judging the veracity of a term over another based solely on 'Google hits' is a questionable way finding the 'truth'. Google, though a tech giant based in the Silicon Valley, US has zero data centre or server in Africa. There are a combined 10k hits for both Ube Bekee and Ube Oyibo in all of googles servers, does that not irk your reliance on its results bearing in mind that the combined result is about 0.03125% of the estimated 32,000,000 Igbo people worldwide? Furthermore, your syllogism that infers 'ube oyibo' is more popular that 'ube bekee' ignores Google's personalised search algorithm. I decline to fall into the harsh temptation of validating Wiki content based solely on popularity instead of veracity. That said, I implore you to imbibe the advice in Proverbs 23:23 to seek wisdom and sell it not (i.e allow the propagation of knowledge and do not suppress or cause it to dwindle!).

I answered your question by giving a background to what Avocado is called in Nigeria. I said it is called 'Avocado Pear' or colloqially 'Pear' due to our colonial history. There is no established Nigerian Variety of English as a language except the Nigerian Pidgin English which follows no standardised rule of regular English grammar. Otherwise, Nigerians follow the rules of British English save for recent incursions by American English influences. Specifically, the Igbo word for 'Avocado' is 'Ube + a suffix that signifies foreign, such as Bekee (White Man), Oyibo (White People). In Akwa Ibom State, 'Eben Mbakara' means Pear of the Fair/White person. Therefore, Ube Bekee is not the native name for Yoruba, Hausa, Tiv, Nupe, Ijaw, Igbira and hundreds of other ethnicities in Nigeria, only the Igbos which was identified specifically in the edit where it was said thus: In south-eastern Nigeria, the Igbo natives...". Where for reasons unbeknownst, we cannot agree to improve the 'Regional Names' section by people from the different parts of the word providing regional context to the name of Avocado, it is suggested that the section be deleted altogether - so we can agree at least to disagree.Ckchurchyll (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

One thing that would help would be to find a source to cite. It doesn't have to be a scientific journal article (nor is that really relevant here, unless it's on linguistics!) but verifiable sources are helpful, even on uncontroversial statements. You're more qualified than I am to find and evaluate one. (More info here, if desired: WP:CITE.) Maybe refer to it in the article as ube bekee/ube oyibo if those are both used commonly. (They sound like synonyms, to my ear.) While I have you here, another question: Would it be incorrect to use the lowercase form? In English there's an odd tension in organism common names, such that you might see "Red-winged Blackbird" in a field guide, but "red-winged blackbird" in common use. In Igbo, if someone said "I ate an avocado", would they write "Ube Bekee" or "ube bekee"? The latter would certainly fit better in Wikipedia's style, which is why I ask. -- Phyzome (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and if we keep this text, I might also move it below the paragraph about Vietnamese and Chinese, simply because there are more speakers of those. -- Phyzome (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Prior discussions on non-English common names:

Common name sections do have a tendency to balloon out of control. When editors see several names in non-English languages listed, they are encouraged to add names from other languages they are familiar with (example1 example2 of diffs removing common name bloat). Given that this discussion started specifically with regards to an Igbo name, I didn't see anything wrong with removing some names from other languages. Vietnamese is available via interwiki link, and when the Vietnamese name was added, it broke attribution (the citation following the Vietnamese name supports avocados being called "butter fruit" in India and says nothing about Vietnamese). Since Ckchurchyll states that avocados are called "avocado pears" or "pears" by Nigerians speaking English, I don't see any reason to include the Igbo name. Plantdrew (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Plantdrew:, this is very useful! After skimming several of those discussions, I have a few thoughts:

I like the idea of using wiktionary for presenting such information. It seems like the right place to do it—it's intended for long lists of cross-language information. When looking at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/avocado#Translations for example, I notice that the Vietnamese, Cantonese, and Mandarin are already represented. The Igbo names could be added as well, regardless of whether Avocado includes them. (@Ckchurchyll: would you be able to take care of that? I've never edited the translation tables, but the instructions don't look too bad.)
In your link Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive21#language_policy?, user EncycloPetey notes some heuristics for whether or not a common name should be included in a plants article. I think some of your other links had some additional ideas along those lines.
At a meta level, if this sort of discussion is happening over and over, that indicates a need for an essay, either as a user's subpage or perhaps as a WikiProject Plants page. (Or broader, for animals and fungi?) If we had a list we could point to of common name notability criteria, combined with direction to add less-notable names to Wiktionary, and a summary of the reasoning, that would be perfect for linking to either on Talk pages or in delete/revert summaries. (Maybe not entirely relevant here, but there's still the tricky matter of "what is an English name?" given that names originating outside of English get used by English speakers.)
At a specific level, I think it would be reasonable to edit down the Etymology/Regional Names section to include at least the following: Common English names, etymological information, name variants (e.g. "avo"), and mention of common themes in naming (pear, cheese, butter). Maybe it would be appropriate to link to the Wiktionary page. (Do we have a template for that? Maybe we should.)

Summary: I feel like if the Igbo names were added to Wiktionary and the Etymology/Regional Names section were to be trimmed down to give a broader overview of how avocados are named in various languages (rather than listing them outright), that could be a good outcome. But I'd really like to see a guidelines page we can point people towards. -- Phyzome (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I also do have a concern that the Wiktionary translation tables don't appear to have any place for citing sources... but I guess that's a problem for Wiktionary. -- Phyzome (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Phyzome:, great suggestions here. Wiktionary can hold some of these. I mentioned above situations where I feel including non-English common names is justified, which is similar to EncycloPetey's suggestions. An essay that we could point to would be helpful. I construe "English" names pretty broadly; if a name is used in English texts (e.g. recipes in the cases of edible plants), it's English regardless of etymological origin (though if a particular name isn't used in very many English text, it may not be worth including on Wikipedia). The mentions of Igbo names for avocado I was finding on the internet were in translation dictionaries and lists of Igbo plant names, which don't quite count for me. My go-to example of a "non-English" name that Wikipedia should absolutely mention is brinjal; it is Indian English for eggplant/aubergine, and there are probably more English speakers (as a second language) who know it as brinjal than aubergine.

I appreciate your suggestions for what to include in this particular article. Common themes are interesting, but that does have some potential to get out of control. Wikipedia used to have a stand-alone article showing naming themes in different languages for turkeys (the birds); it was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of names for turkeys), but is preserved on a Wikipedia mirror (here). Plantdrew (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Sectioned off first comment

"A" and "B cultivars" are confusing; could explain what a cultivar is and what each subheading means more. Could add a header to put subheadings "A" and "B cultivars" under instead of just having them under "Cultivation in Peru". Mosenga17 (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Under "Culinary Uses" the pictures added could use citations of where the pictures came from. If they came from a restaurant website you should site which restaurant it came from and what the dish is called. Mosenga17 (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)