text:
Talk:Cooking banana

Untitled
There is no such thing as a "carbohydrate requirement". Also, the wikipedia page that the expressions links to, makes no mention of a "carbohydrate requirement". Probably, was meant "caloric requirement", or "energy requirement" or something like that. Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 23:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thanat0s.jpg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed move
I've spent quite a bit of time researching the meaning of "plantain" and the distinction, if any, between "banana" and "plantain". Initially I assumed I would find a clear definition or set of definitions that could be used to clarify the content of this article.

See Banana for the outcome of this research.

I conclude that:
 * In commerce in Europe and the Americas, a two-fold division of Musa fruits into "plantains" and "bananas" works, but this because only a small number of cultivars are grown commercially. In small-scale cultivation, and in the rest of the world, the variety of cultivars grown and eaten don't fit into this two-fold categorization.
 * The only meaning of "plantain" that meets the precision requirement of WP:AT is the use as a name for the Plantain subgroup of the AAB Group of Musa cultivars. This use is well-supported by reliable sources. It's present in the article when "Philippine plantains" (which are almost always called "bananas" not "plantains" in the source literature and are not members of the Plantain subgroup) are distinguished from "traditional South American style large plantains" (which are members of the Plantain subgroup of cultivars and so can properly be called "plantains").

There seem to me to be two possibilities to fix the current muddled content:
 * 1) Make this an article about plantains proper, i.e. cultivars of the AAB Group, Plantain subgroup.
 * 2) Move this article to a more accurate title.

I think there does need to be an article on the Plantain subgroup, but it should not cover all the cooking uses of bananas/plantains in this article.

So my proposal is to move this article to "Cooking banana". Cooking bananas are not totally distinct from dessert bananas, and the article should say this, but under this title all uses of bananas/plantains as cooked food can legitimately be covered. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I liked when it was two distinctions. It appears that English speaking countries use two distinctions. I think plantains should stay where it is as the cooking or starch banana. Banana can cover musa as a whole. Could Banana (common/sweet) or the cultivar name, work for the dessert banana? Referring to the banana genus as musa could make sense, the same way citrus is used, but that sounds odd, and this is not the place for original naming. The word banana takes on more meanings per species as well as cultivar when a new one is made widely known. This subject does not seem as clear cut as citrus. - Sidelight 12 Talk 14:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not clear cut! I'd like there to be a simple two-fold distinction as there is in popular usage in English-speaking countries. But the usage in all the agricultural and similarly more technical English sources (such as Stover & Simmonds (1987), Bananas, which still seems to be the 'standard' texbook) is different: "plantain" only refers to the AAB Group, Plantain subgroup cultivars and not all cooking bananas. And although this is the English language Wikipedia, it's also an international online encyclopaedia and needs to cover the worldwide use of bananas. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The other uses of the word, have to be translated from any language that has more distinctions. The nav box goes by cultivars, and that should be left alone. "Plantain (cultivar)" can serve as an article title. Probably add 2 new articles "Banana (common)", "Banana (dessert)" or "Banana (sweet)" and "Plantain (cooking)"/"(starch)" could do. Or it could all be left alone, because that seemed to work before. Whatever the decision, the modifier should go in parenthesis after banana or plantain. Sidelight 12 Talk 15:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Plantain" is definitely not a cultivar. It's a subgroup of cultivars with many members – only some of them are listed at List of banana cultivars. I'm not quite sure that you understand my point. At present, this article isn't just about plantains, it's about different kinds of cooking bananas and how they are used; plantains are just one kind of cooking banana. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Its listed as a cultivar here Template:Banana. Ok then, if more agree, move it to cook style plantain, and start an article of the AAB group, true plantains. Sidelight 12 Talk 15:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's definitely a mistake; I've removed it. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, this article can stay where it is. Plantain itself is vague, so it can stay without alteration of the name. I adjusted the first paragraph and the hatnote to describe the information from the talkpage. You can adjust it. The point was to indicate the large usage of the word plantain, and specify this is the cooking/starchy plantain, and it won't contrast the terminology of any local dialect, scientific or popular use. I left a redlink to "True plantains" for the scientific naming, that link can be changed, if there's a more suitable name. - Sidelight 12 Talk 23:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the "(cooking)" tagged on to the title is somewhat awkward/confusing - it seems to indicate that the article is about something more related to cooking e.g. a style or technique of cooking, rather than a fruit. Would simply "Plantain" suffice (per WP:CONCISE), and the disambiguation page only be retained at Plantain (disambiguation)?  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is not about plantains, in either of the two senses of the word. It's not about the cultivar group (which is how banana researchers and specialists use the word), because that article is at Plantain (true). It's not about plantains as distinct from dessert bananas, which is how the term "plantain" is used in North America and the UK, because it includes uses of dessert bananas in cooking and because the plantain/banana distinction is not made in in many of the countries whose cuisines are described in the article (e.g. India, SE Asia generally). If it's about anything it's about the use of all kinds of banana when cooked, whether they are called "plantains" or not. So "Plantain" would be a slightly worse title than the present one. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is "Cooking plantain" a better name for this article? - Sidelight 12 Talk 22:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly, although I continue to prefer "Cooking banana". However, fixing wikilinks is a non-trivial task as I found when "Plantain" was divided between "Plantain (cooking)" and "Plantain (true)", so I personally don't think that moving "Plantain (cooking)" to "Cooking plantain" is worth the effort required to sort everything out afterwards. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see - thank you for that explanation, I think I understand the issue better now. I believe that if you'd think it best that it be titled Cooking banana, however (which sounds reasonable to me), it'd be less complicated than fixing the wikilinks after splitting Plaintain into two - in this case it'd just be a simple redirect of one page to another, rather than having to pick which of the two articles each link should direct to. i.e., everything that links to Plantain (cooking) would simply begin to link to Cooking banana, correct? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In the first instance, yes, I agree that a simple redirect would work. But ideally links would need checking. At the risk of being repetitious, the problem is that in articles written from the point of view of countries in which distinct dessert and cooking varieties of bananas are sold and where those cooking varieties are almost always true plantains (e.g. the US and most of the Americas, North and South, the UK), when the word "plantain" occurs in an article, it may be correct to wikilink to either Plantain (true) or to Plantain (cooking), depending on the exact shade of meaning. When the last title change was made, it was often hard to tell which was the best wikilink. So even a slight change of article title could in principle mean that these wikilinks should be reviewed. So I'd like to be sure that there was some real gain from changing the title. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * On second thought... I hate to backtrack in this discussion, but if the word "plantain" in the English-speaking world almost always refers to the cooking varieties that are almost always true plantains, is it not best to make the articles reflect that usage per WP:COMMONNAME? One for banana, one for plantain, if that's how they're most commonly divided in the English speaking world, with an explanation of the cultural naming differences globally.  Banana can contain a description of the various dishes made with what are called "bananas" by the majority of the English speaking world, cooked or not.  If we start trying to include the viewpoints of the entire of the world, we can end up with some sticky messes - it's for a similar reason that we have on article on blue but not light blue as a separate color, even though they do in other languages like Russian.  Perhaps somewhat unfortunately, whether or not this distinction has any basis in logic or taxonomic evidence can't have as much bearing as what is in most popular usage in reliable English-language sources. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Two points:
 * WP:COMMONNAME is only one of the criteria in choosing titles. There's also WP:PRECISION.
 * It would be possible to have an article about the uses of what most native English speakers call "plantains". But it's not this article. It would be about a subset of banana cultivars plus how they are used in cooking. It would combine bits of Plantain (true) with bits of this article. You would need another article or section of the Banana article to cover cooking uses of dessert bananas and the majority of the cultivars around the world that aren't either Western dessert bananas or plantains.
 * There's a case, I think, for four articles, covering:
 * bananas and plantains generally
 * all uses of bananas and plantains as food, not just cooking but also in beer-making
 * the cultivars that banana experts call plantains
 * the cultivars that are called plantains in the US, UK, etc.
 * Dividing up these four topics into three articles is causing some of the current confusion, I think, although there will always be confusion because "plantain" is a confused concept in English. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I understand the desire to try to help clarify the matter by separating all of the ideas into different articles with cleanly defined scopes, but I'm not sure if that's the best approach for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I think that we'll be left with a couple of stubs, like Plantain (true) currently is, because of their limited scope.  But more importantly, I think it might be best for the two titles that will be most familiar to English speakers, banana and plantain, to contain all of the information relevant to their subjects in a centralized place to present the information in a unified and coherent manner.  Effectively, this could give us the opportunity to compare and contrast the ideas and say "here is what you think bananas and plantains are, and here is why that doesn't have an actual basis in physical evidence.  Experts say this, other cultures say that."  If we split up all of the topics, I think it can tend to make the message more convoluted unless they are made to all fit together in just the right way - and stay that way as others add their own contributions to them.  I think it makes good sense, as you suggest, to have a separate article on bananas and plantains in food and beer-making, as that would have clearly defined breadth, with a separate-enough subject matter to the main article to help keep the main articles cleaner and more readable.  Or do you feel that something would be lost by trying to cram them all into fewer articles?  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you could have one article – but it would be very long (too long in my view). I think the current two articles, Banana and Plantain (cooking) are correct in their content, it's just the title which is the problem, since cover what US/UK speakers call "bananas"  what they call "plantains". Peter coxhead (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I messed it up earlier. The content allocation worked out well, but the naming was off. I changed the title of the true plantain article to "True plantains", and plan to finish fixing the redirects. If "Banana (cooking)" becomes "Cooking banana" someone could try to recreate plantain, do you think "Cooking plantain" is better? I can try to fix the links. Sorry about that. Oh, for the template, which is better "common banana cultivars" or "banana cultivars"? - Sidelight 12 Talk 07:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree on the content allocation. As for the article titles, if Wikipedia didn't object to "and" in titles, it seems to me now that the best titles would be "Banana and plantain" for Banana and something like "Culinary uses of bananas and plantains" for Plantain (cooking). Given the constraints of WP:AT, I'm still unsure that there's really anything significantly better than the existing titles. Sigh...
 * The template is another issue. Keep it short, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a title like that could work if that's what you think would make most sense, based on my reading of WP:AND. Sounds reasonable to me, and I'd think it wouldn't be considered OR to group the two based on what you've all presented.  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I suggest leaving it at "Cooking plantain" for the present, which seems to work ok. If a proposal to change yet again comes up, we can see whether there is support for a longer title. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The topic of this article (again)
As I explained above, I would prefer there to be a general "food" oriented article under a title like "Cooking banana" and then a "cultivar group" oriented article under a title like "Plantain group". However, this suggestion did not find consensus. So this article is about uses of bananas in cooking, i.e. the.

Now recently there have been some edits which have attempted to narrow the definition of "plantain" in the lead section. I would be only too happy to accept these edits if we can agree that all the material about cooking bananas other than "true plantains" is removed to another article. But until that is agreed, it's wrong to try to change the very broad definition of "plantain", so I have reversed/reverted some recent edits. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I believe we should have two articles: one on the cooking plantain, and another on the sub-cultivar (true plantain). If any edits were made here for true plantains, I suggest moving it to a new article. I dislike undoing other's edits, because I think everyone tries to have meaningful contributions. Read the above section for how cooking plantain needs its own article, and so does true plantain need its own article. If you read that its likely to come to the same understanding. Having plantain by cooking method is the only clear cut way to distinguish this topic by my understanding. I think we need consensus for the title names. Plantain (true/subcultivar). Feel free to comment.Sidelight 12 Talk 07:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was eager to move the page. I also wanted to keep it as it was, but as long as the distinction wasn't made in the title, someone will always try to edit it to be about true plantains before fully understanding the distinctions of categorizing plantains/bananas. It would never be resolved if it stayed where it was, no matter how clear the introduction was made. Sidelight 12 Talk 08:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you did the right thing. I've edited the lead (yet again!) to try to make it even clearer that this article is about plantain = any cooking plantain or banana and that Plantain (true) is about one particular subgroup of cultivars, the Plantain subgroup of the AAB genome group. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I figured the distinction in english speaking markets between banana and plantain are the subgroups cavendish (chiquita and similar) bananas and true plantains. Since those two are the most popular, its a basic distinction that leaves out the many other varieties of banana. Sidelight 12 Talk 10:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Should we move this page to "cooking banana," but leave that article alone to include any plantain/banana used in cooking?

 * There is now an article on true plantains, and it would make sense to have an article for each cultivar group that formally has plantain in its name. I say one article for each cultivar group, by botanical distinction: true plantains, cavendish bananas, 2 groups that make up pacific plantains. Sidelight 12 Talk 23:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm really unsure what the best title for this article is! Up to yesterday, I thought that it would be "Cooking banana" (as I suggested earlier), but I now think that this doesn't bring out the fact that in the main English-speaking countries (e.g. the US, the UK, Australia) "plantain" is commonly used in the sense of "cooking banana". The most accurate title would be something like "Uses of plantains and bananas in cooking" or perhaps the wider "Culinary uses of plantains and bananas" but these are too long, I think (and Wikipedia seems to discourage "X and Y" in titles; see WP:AND).
 * I agree that each major group or subgroup of cultivars should have its own article. I'm trying to work on something else at present, so I'll have to leave expanding the Plantain (true) article and developing other articles to other editors. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We should move this to "cooking banana." No matter how the words are defined, this article is about cooking plantains or bananas. There is a problem with the word plantain, to my understanding: some cultures use it to define all cooking bananas, and other cultures use it to define a subset of cooking bananas. Britannica defines plantain as synonymous with cooking banana.

I understand 3 definitions: true plantain, pacific plantains, and plantain informally referring to cooking banana (by some cultures). AlxzF, is there another usage or concern of the word plantain?Sidelight 12 Talk 00:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

ENGVAR of article
Can anyone work out what WP:ENGVAR this article is supposed to be written in? Its early history is very tangled and it has been edited back and forth by so many different people, it's not at all clear to me. Currently there are some "-our" spellings (e.g. "colour") but also some "-ize" spellings (e.g. "caramelize"), so there's no consistency. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Article move
I strongly object to the move of this article from "Plantain (cooking)" to "Plantain" without consensus being established first. Long-standing discussions have been completely ignored.

If the article is to be about the term as understood in the USA, the UK, etc. then material about cooked bananas in the Philippines, for example, should be removed, because these are not "plantains" in this sense (i.e. not starchy cultivars, mainly true plantains). Care must also be taken that none of the material refers to uses of dessert banana cultivars in cooking. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Archiving this talk page has removed a discussion relevant to the move; see Talk:Plantain/Archive_1. When the article was previously just called "Plantain" entirely spurious statistics were added. This is now more likely to happen again. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

 * According to the page view statistics, approximately 68% of the average 25,000 monthly visitors to Wikipedia looking for an article on "plantain" were looking for the article that was at "Plantain (cooking)"; this is a strong indicator that the article at "Plantain (cooking)" is the WP:Primary topic. Of the other existing articles on Wikipedia (and for disambiguation we are only looking to direct readers to existing articles that the reader may be looking for - disambiguation is not intended to define a word or explain a term - its aim is to help guide the reader to the article they are looking for - see Disambiguation), we have: Fried plantain, an article which gets less than 7%; True plantains, a recent article with few readers; and Plantago and Rhino Horn banana which are types of plantain.
 * Something that I think could be considered, is if a disambiguation page is helpful in this case. Topics such as Fried plantain and True plantains could be discussed within the plantain article (I am doubtful of the helpfulness of such articles as stand alones). Readers could be directed to specific types of plantain from the article, either as a section within the article which talks about types of plantain, or simply as a link in a See also section. There are also some navigation templates that could perhaps be better used: Banana and Banana cultivars.
 * Though I don't have specific topic knowledge, I am willing to help out with advice and technical assistance in tidying up the plantain topic. Just let me know.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

 * To move an article without, on your own admission, reading the ongoing discussion on the talk page about the choice of article title is, in my view, an abuse of admin privilege. You should begin by undoing what you have done, and then we can continue the discussion and try to reach a consensus.
 * Choosing an article title is governed by the whole of WP:AT, not only WP:Primary topic. The problem with just "Plantain" as a title, as was found when it was the title before, is that it fails WP:PRECISION, as is explained in the discussions above. The article is about the uses of bananas in cooking; most but not all are called plantains. Only information about cooking should be added to the article, not information about plantains as cultivars, and the article includes cooking uses of cultivars which are not plantains in any of the senses of this highly ambiguous word. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

 * It may not be an abuse of privileges, but it is a misinformed move. The problem with leaving it as a plantain article is that editors will try to make it about two separate subjects from one article. This is about the cooking banana, and someone will try to identify it with a taxobox. Leaving this article as Plantain will endlessly create this problem. It took me a while to understand this, and this is a similar problem with others of different cultural, scientific or culinary viewpoints. If this moves to "cooking banana" someone will try to recreate the plantain article, so this is why its less confusing for no matter which viewpoint someone is from to call it "cooking plantain." The information in this article is (and largely was) about cooking bananas, so the name should reflect the information, rather than rewrite it when a title can easily be adjusted. I wanted the names to be as "Plantain, cooking"; "Plantain, true"; but it is not convention here to use comas. The disambiguation page needs to be restored. I see that fried plantains and the article about cooking bananas can be merged. - Sidelight 12 Talk 09:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Properly describing the situation from the "plantain" title didn't work, even with the use of hatnotes. Someone tried to make it about a cultivar. If this article stays with this name, there will always be edit conflicts among people who only know their own viewpoint, or who try to scientifically simplify it. I even thought about how could this article be cleaned up to talk about a cultivar or cultivars. Different regions have different definitions or translations, and they are unfamiliar with other viewpoints. I kind of agreed with everyone's opposing views, figuring they have the same rationale as me, but from a different perspective. So how the articles were a few days ago seem to not conflict with the varying cultural, scientific, or culinary perspectives. And with the content distinction made earlier content conflicts have disappeared (there is only now a title conflict). - Sidelight 12 Talk 09:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal
True plantains should be a section of this article. Benny White (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. The title of this article is a compromise; it is not actually about "plantains" in the sense that these are different from "bananas" – it's actually about all cooking uses of cultivated Musa fruits. True plantains is about a distinctive group of cultivars. There's no more reason to merge "True plantains" here than there is to merge any of the other articles about banana cultivars.
 * Please read the discussion above. The underlying problem is that "banana" has two distinct meanings. Firstly, it's used for all cultivated Musa fruits (or indeed all Musa fruits). In the areas of origin of bananas (in this sense) it's the only term normally used in English. Secondly, in countries where bananas are imported or very few cultivars are grown, "bananas" can be distinguished from "plantains", where "banana" = "sweet banana eaten raw" and "plantain" = "starchy banana eaten cooked". This article is about culinary uses of all cultivars. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense. I proposed the merge because "True plantains" seems too short for a standalone article. Actually, it contains pretty redundant information to List of banana cultivars, so it would make a lot of sense to merge it there. Benny White (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that at present this is the case. The issue is whether it's worth leaving stub articles on specific cultivar groups in the hope they will be expanded. I'm generally of the view that it is, but if they don't get expanded, then at some point it would be sensible to merge. There is definitely more information on the true plantain group out there. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm against it. We shouldn't sacrifice structure, because of the length of articles. One use is culinary, the other use is botanical. Before, the article was confusing, so it got distinguished and fixed to a clear separation. This article was always about cooking banana, and it was tempting for everyone to identify it as a taxon. I'd rather have a stub article, which allows clear definitions and less confusion. - Sidelight 12 Talk 16:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Cooking plantain - seriously?
Why, oh why would ANYONE confuse the whole banana-plantain debate by adding the new term "cooking plantain" to the muddle?

All plantains are eaten cooked or processed due to their high starch vs sugar content - even when ripe ... and ALL PLANTAINS ARE BANANAS ... so all plantains are COOKING BANANAS ... there is no such thing as a "Cooking plantain", just as there is no such thing as a "Dessert plantain"!

HOWEVER: 1) not all cooking bananas are plantains (i.e. Musa AAA EAHB - East African Highland Bananas aka Matooke), 2) not all Musa AAB bananas are plantains (see 'Silk' and 'Apple' AAB dessert banana), 3) nor are all plantains included in the Musa AAB Plantain subgroup ( Maoli-Popo'ulu and Iholena subgroups - aka Pacific Plantains - see http://agroforestry.net/tti/Banana-plantain-overview.pdf).

Could whoever is technically able to do so eliminate the hopefully unintentionally though extremely confusing term "Cooking Plantain" from Wikipedia and either organize it all so that "Plantain" leads to a disambiguation page, explaining that the term plantain may refer to:

1) a type of cooking banana, usually represented by the members of the Musa AAB Plantain subgroup;

2) the Musa AAB Plantain subgroup itself;

3) cooking bananas in general, esp. in the English speaking world, though in francophone Africa, for example, bananas are divided into "Banane Dessert" and "Banane Plantain", always retaining the crucial "Banane" to remind everyone that plantains are bananas, though bananas are not necessarily plantains!

If the "Cooking plantain" page claims to refer to: "any banana used in cooking.", it should be titled "Banana (Cooking)" or "Cooking Banana" ... but PLEASE: NOT "Plantain cooking"!

Even "Plantain(cooking)" is confusing & should be eliminated from Wikipedia - better to redirect from "Banana (cooking)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrAzF (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Personally, I entirely agree with these comments, and would much prefer this article to be called something like "Culinary uses of bananas and plantains". However, past attempts to reach agreement on such a move were not successful. The nature of Wikipedia is such that article titles are determined by consensus.

 * The problem in terms of Wikipedia guidelines and policies is that most readers searching for the term "plantain" are not botanists or horticulturalists and are from countries in which "plantains" and "bananas" are distinct. So when they search for "plantain" they mostly mean "the greenish Musa fruit sold to be eaten cooked". Similarly, many if not most wikilinks in other articles to "plantain" have the same vague meaning. WP:COMMONNAME then suggests that "Plantain" should either be an article title or should re-direct to an article, in spite of the fact that the term is hopelessly imprecise. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Maybe we're going about it the wrong way?
 * Why not have all wikipedia links & searches for the term "Plantain" lead to a "Cooking Banana" page - as in English that is what is most usually meant when the term is used. The information on the "Cooking Banana" page could start with a disambiguation so that readers can choose to either continue to read:
 * 1) a "Plantain" page (which would include the information from the "Cooking Plantain" page)
 * 2) "botanically" True Plantains
 * 3) the "Cooking Banana" page itself, which would list different bananas eaten cooked and link to already existing pages (where possible), including East African Highland Bananas (aka Matoke), Plantains, and others ...DrAzF (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 29 October 2016

 * 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 – At least just yet. As Daphne Guinness once said Life is full of banana skins. You slip, you carry on.. Before we clumsily slip on this RM, I’d like to see a concerted discussion on the what the title Plantain ought to be—DAB, CONCEPT DAB, Redirect, etc. There are good points made below by all. Indeed Cooking plantain is awkward but before we slip on that peel let’s consider all positions and recommend an overall solution before the next RM is opened. Mike Cline (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Cooking plantain → Plantain – I have no idea why this is called "cooking" plantain. Bod (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Oppose There was a lot of discussion about this in the past and this rather unsatisfactory title was the compromise reached. I would prefer it to be called "cooking banana" or some such, but there hasn't been a consensus. The problem in a nutshell is that "plantain" has several meanings:
 * English-speakers in Western countries refer to dessert bananas as "bananas" and cooking bananas as "plantains"; English-speakers in tropical countries do not, since they are familiar with a much wider range of bananas.
 * Botanists, especially those involved with bananas, use "plantain" to refer to a subgroup of bananas, "true plantains".
 * In reality, in terms of use not botany, there are several kinds of banana, including:
 * Dessert bananas, i.e. those intended to be eaten raw; most of these are what Westerners call "bananas" but others, like some Fe'i banana cultivars are not
 * Cooking bananas, i.e. those intended to be cooked, many but not all of which belong to the "true plantains"
 * Brewing bananas, particularly cultivated in East Africa for brewing banana beer
 * It simply isn't possible to fit the reality into a simple "banana" vs. "plantain" dichotomy. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 * I don't think the issue is as confused as you are making it sound. Given that plantain redirects here and true plantain has its own article... I also didn't quite understand the Fe'i banana point (something I have never heard of). If Westerners don't call them bananas, what do they call them? The title needs to be changed as seen in the above discussions on this page! Plantains are bananas that you cook. --Bod (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you just can't say that plantains are bananas that you cook. Firstly, if you cook the standard yellow dessert banana found in Western countries (almost certainly a Cavendish cultivar), it doesn't magically become a plantain. So you really mean plantains are bananas that are meant to be cooked or plantains are bananas that are normally eaten only after cooking. Yes, this is one meaning of "plantain" but only one, as noted above; in particular banana scientists don't use this terminology (see the comments above by "DrAzF" who is a banana scientist).
 * If you read the article carefully, you'll see that it's not about "plantains" in either the common Western sense nor the scientific sense. It includes, for example, information on how Saba bananas are cooked and used in the Philippines. It includes information on cooking bananas in India, but as noted, there's no sharp distinction between bananas and plantains in India – the national statistics don't distinguish them.
 * The article should be called "Cooking bananas" or "Culinary uses of bananas" or some such, but there has never been a consensus for this change. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Well, I suppose we will have to be in slight disagreement. IMO, this article should be on those cultivars of banana with a high starch content that are typically cooked. I guess this is more than just the "true plantains". Even those "Saba bananas" are called "Philippine plantains" in the article. "Cooking plantains" is redundant, while "cooking banana" is not. We agree on that, no? "Plantain" is worthy of an article on Wikipedia. This article should be it and any information that you think is related to bananas that are not "plantains", you can remove and move to the banana article. Just because the article mutated slightly beyond its bounds doesn't mean it can't be trimmed down.  --Bod (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But Banana is explicitly about all Musa fruits, whether called "bananas" or "plantains" – please read it. So there's no reason to include only information about cooking those fruits not usually called "plantains", as would be the effect of your suggestion. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Support – though there's some ambiguity about the scope of the term, plantain is clearly the common name of what this article is about and the article can clarify the rest. Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that "plantain" is equally clearly the common name of the article currently titled True plantains, and we could equally well be discussing moving it to "Plantain". Peter coxhead (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Either one article gets the title, or plantain should become a disambiguation between the two. It shouldn't redirect to one or the other because it is clearly the most common name for either, and in our system, the most common name (generally speaking, bar WP:NDESC) becomes the title if it is a redirect. I don't care whether plantain becomes a disambiguation page or the title of one of the article, as arguments could be made all three ways; I support this move as a step in the right direction, as it shouldn't be a redirect as above. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 08:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Support - Plantain is clearly the best name per WP:CRITERIA. It's a much better choice than to basically invent one, which is what has been done with the current title, especially as plantain redirects here. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 08:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How can it be the best title if it fails WP:PRECISION? Best would be to use "Cooking banana" here, with "Plantain" as a dab. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Cooking plantain could potentially be considered the primary topic of "plantain", which would support a move to that title, with a hatnote to true plantains. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 09:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Strong Oppose moving to "Plantain" per Peter. Although I support moving to a different name, since "cooking plantain" is redundant at best, and highly misleading at worst, per User:DrAzF in the previous section.

 * As an exercise, if we do create a separate "Plantain" article, what will be your subject?

 * "True" Plantains in the AAB cultivar group? That already exists under true plantains. And again, it does not include all cooking bananas. Neither are its members exclusively cooked (Rhino Horn bananas for example). And if so, what about the Pacific Plantains subgroup, ABB cultivars like Blue Java or Saba, AAA cultivars like East African Highland bananas, etc.? These are also primarily cooked, but are NOT "true" AAB plantains.

 * Maybe bananas called "plantains" in common usage? Which ones and in which country? US? UK? Latin America? Africa? Southeast Asia? Bananas with more starch? Bananas which are not the classic yellow curved shape of the Cavendish cultivars sold in western supermarkets by Dole and Chiquita, etc.?

 * Maybe use it to refer to all bananas that are cooked as opposed to bananas that are eaten raw? That won't work as well. Because bananas usually seen as "dessert" bananas in the West, can be and are used in cooking. Conversely, bananas usually seen as "plantains" can be and are eaten raw if allowed to ripen and sweeten.

 * Because the simple truth is that the common name "plantain" does not refer to specific banana cultivars at all, nor even to bananas specifically only eaten in one manner. While yes, it is a common name, "Plantain" as an article title completely fails WP:PRECISION. The current lead paragraph of this article already explains this.

 * "Plantain" is an arbitrary name based on the perceived method that certain banana cultivars are usually eaten in a given culture. The difference between "plantain" and "banana" seem obvious to western cultures which really only have access to imported Cavendish bananas. But in regions where bananas are natively grown (and where hundreds of cultivars exist), that distinction does not exist. In fact, plátano, the Spanish word from which the English term "plantain" is derived from, refers to ALL bananas. Not just cooking ones.

 * Again, there is no botanical distinction that separates what you call "plantains" from other bananas. It's as taxonomically meaningless as saying "bugs". Even the starch vs. sugar content isn't a reliable way to tell because all bananas start out starchy when unripe (which is usually the stage that they are cooked, and hence the stage where some cultivars are called "plantains"). Scientifically, they are fruits of the same plants with the same genetic makeups.

 * The term "Plantain" just means "bananas that you cook with" in its current common usage. And it doesn't even refer to all bananas that you cook with. I'd rather that the article remove all use of the word "plantain" in the title altogether and simply call it "cooking banana", as Peter proposed earlier. Similar to other articles like cooking apple, which has almost exactly the same situation.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  10:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Or yes, Culinary uses of bananas works just as well too, and sounds less like a "made-up" term. Because that really is just what "plantain" is, despite the widespread misconception in western countries that they are different fruits.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  11:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Oppose without a solution for the ambiguity issues. It seems that the most common plantains are not plantains while the real plantains are not common.  This begs for a one paragraph CONCEPTDAB article at plantain with info from the intro of the current cooking plantain article.  A retitle or refocus of this article to culinary uses of bananas would work in conjunction with this.  —  AjaxSmack   17:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's actually not a bad idea. --23:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A CONCEPTDAB could work. Srnec (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Comment It sounds like there is more support for making sure that there is no longer an article titled "Cooking plantain", with an actual DAB for Plantain and the current article under Culinary uses of bananas.

 * Support. The common name for the subject of this article is "plantain" and the primary meaning of "plantain" is the subject of this article. At least, that seems to be the case and nobody is denying it. That there is ambiguity is also not denied, but is not as relevant as some think to determining article names Srnec (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I certainly deny it. In some countries, the two meanings of "plantain" – in short "bananas for cooking" and "cultivars classified as plantains" – coincide. These are countries in which bananas aren't grown and in which they are only known through imports controlled by a few large multi-national companies. In many more countries, where bananas are actually grown, the two meanings don't coincide; the first doesn't exist as a discrete category because there's a complete spectrum, with a much, much wider range of Musa fruits of all kinds being grown, sold and eaten. This has been explained over and over again here, and to be frank, I think that cultural imperialism is operating: editors are claiming the words must mean what they mean in North America and the UK, regardless of the true worldwide situation. This is an international encyclopedia in English, not a US/UK encyclopedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The intro to this paper might also explain the situation better:
 * Banana classification and nomenclature have been a complicated issue from the very beginning. The problem started with the simplistic description of plantain, Musa paradisiaca Linn. and the dessert banana, Musa sapientum Linn. by Karl Linnaeus, the father of modern botanical nomenclature. The complication emanated from the very limited specimens available to Linnaeus in Europe where the original names were given. While the differentiation between plantains, a special type of cooking banana and dessert bananas is readily applicable in Africa and Latin America, their adoption in Southeast Asia has led to confusion. This is because in the center of Musa diversity, many local cultivars possess characteristics that transcend the diagnostic characters used elsewhere to differentiate bananas from plantains.

 * The confusion is a relic of the fact that plantains and bananas were classified as two different species for almost 3 centuries, before the discovery that all of them are actually just triploid clones of Musa acuminata and/or Musa balbisiana. The "difference" between plantains and bananas was an illusion generated by the fact that Europeans only had access to a few banana cultivars, with the only "banana" they were really familiar with being the medium-sized sweet AAA cultivars (Gros Michel banana and Cavendish bananas). An illusion that still exists today.

 * Cambridge Dictionary for example, defines plantains as "a tropical fruit similar to a banana with green skin". Apparently ignorant of the fact that plantains are bananas, and that all bananas (including plantains) have green skin that turn yellow to black as they ripen (with exceptions like red bananas). -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  12:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

 * 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.

Plantain article
Following the result of the RM above, I started work on the plantain article. --00:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC) --Bodhi Peace (talk • contribs)
 * I'm sorry, I reverted your edits on plaintain to restore the redirect to cooking plantain.There are many, many articles that link to the redirect. It also looked as if you were duplicating the dab page at plantain (disambiguation).

 * It would probably be best to draft the article elsewhere (in your user space or draft space), then move the completed article over the redirect. Someone should also go through the articles that link to plantain at that point and be sure they're linked to the correct article. — Gorthian (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I'd like to stick my oar in by saying that in UK (except among the West Indian community) the primary meaning of "plantain" is Plantago (i.e. inedible weeds). It was many years before I ever learnt about the culinary meaning. I have applied weedkiller to plantains, but have never eaten them. Narky Blert (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edn, 2003). "Plantain. (1) a low-growing plant which typically has a rosette of leaves and a slender green flower spike, occurring widely as a weed of lawns. (Origin: Late Middle English, from Old French, from Latin plantago.) (2) a banana containing high levels of starch and little sugar, which is harvested green and widely used as a cooked vegetable in the tropics. (Origin: mid 16th century.) Narky Blert (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I understand . I just want to let it be known that I don't even understand all this "plantain business" and I've been trying to follow along with the discussion, but I'm no expert. I get that it means a weedy plant and certain bananas that are cooked... But this whole business of "true" plantains and these rhino bananas and East African bananas... I don't get why there can't be one article. Maybe Plantain (banana)? Cooking banana? --08:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

 * there can't be one article because "plantain" isn't one topic. As per WP:NOTDICT, Wikipedia articles aren't about words but about topics. "Plantain" is a word used in the context of different topics: cooking bananas, a large group of banana cultivars, smaller and more specific groups of banana cultivars, etc. The issue isn't how many articles there should be: we have more-or-less the right number. The issue is what to call the article that covers the topic "plantains" = "bananas meant for cooking, and how they are cooked". Peter coxhead (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I think that: -- Bod (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "cooking plantain" should be renamed "plantain (banana)"
 * plantain should redirect to plantain (disambiguation)
 * fried plantain should be merged with "cooking plantain"
 * any info about cooking with "bananas" should be in the banana article
 * the link to plantain (banana) is part of the hatnote of the "banana" article
 * the article about "bananas" should be clear about whether it is about dessert bananas or cooking bananas or "brewing" bananas, or all 3
 * there are currently 3 "plantain" articles on the DAB page about different groups:
 * true plantains
 * East African Highland bananas
 * Rhino Horn banana
 * should "Rhino Horn" not be on there? (it can be eaten raw or cooked)
 * Can you point to a specific part of this article that you think is about cooking with dessert bananas? (that should be moved)
 * Sorry to seem unhelpful, but that doesn't quite work; Banana is about all kinds of banana, whether dessert bananas or starchy bananas/plantains, as it makes very clear if you read it. It has to be this way because, just as one example, the production statistics for many countries, including the largest producers, don't distinguish between "bananas" and "plantains", so you can't write about cultivation and production separately. Concerning Rhino Horn cultivars, they precisely make the point that the banana/plantain distinction is not a clear one. "Plantain (banana)" doesn't really help; the 'disambiguator' doesn't pick out one sense of plantain from another.
 * I agree that ideally Plantain should redirect to Plantain (disambiguation). However, this would need someone with enough time to go through all the incoming links and sort them out. I suspect that many should actually redirect to Banana, or some section of that article. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm pretty much done trying to sort this out. I wish my move proposal had succeeded... Yes I do... I think the disambiguation page is needlessly messy and "Cooking" plantain is redundant. --Bod (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

 * On a technical point - a redirect from Plantain to Plantain (disambiguation) would be the wrong way round. A DAB page should be the plain name, and the (disambiguation) page point to it. See WP:MALPLACED. I think I know what not to do before attempting a complex page move like this; but, I do know where and who to ask - so ping me if that is the consensus.
 * Shifting DAB pages around can trigger User:DPL bot to report multiple problems. (Testosterone was split recently, and DPL bot flagged 3,269 errors, to be sorted out manually...) If there is consensus about a change, cleanup may need to be done, but that is not a reason to hold back from making the change. Improving Wikipedia is all that matters. I and other WP:Disambiguation members do this sort of cleanup every day. (At latest count, Testosterone is down to 78 bad links. Getting there:-) )
 * Now for a constructive proposal, which would need some cleanup work but minimal rewriting of existing articles. I envisage a Plantain DAB page something like:
 * Plantain most commonly refers to:
 * Plantain (banana), an edible fruit
 * Plantago or plantain, a genus of weeds
 * Plantain may also refer to: {list}
 * (BTW I much prefer Plantain (banana) to Cooking plantain. Same article, but a more descriptive title.)
 * I have notified WP:Disambiguation of this discussion, inviting more input. It's a worthwhile topic, and worth getting right (preferably, with minimum effort all round). Narky Blert (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the disambiguation page, but I can't see that "Plantain (banana)" is a sensible title. Plantains as bananas, i.e. as a subset of bananas, are covered at Banana.
 * When there are disambiguations of the form "Topic (term)", the clear implication is that some instances of "Topic" are "term" and some are not. But all plantains are bananas. It doesn't disambiguate. It's like disambiguating between the species of bird that are called "robins" in different countries by calling one of the articles "Robin (bird)".
 * We know what this article is about: it's about cooking bananas, covering both those kind of banana that are usually cooked (mostly called "plantains" in non-growing countries) and how and where all kinds of banana are used in cooking. The problem continues to be that editors who haven't studied the topic and those that have or are banana experts in real life haven't been able to agree on a new title, so the current one is the imperfect compromise. I'm stongly in favour of a change, but it must be encyclopedic and must correspond to the topics involved, not the words. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts: I agree that we should turn Plantain into a disambiguation page covering all topics the term is used for. Similar to Narky Blert's proposal, but with fuller details on how the term "Plantain" is used when referring to bananas (i.e. covering both informal and botanical usage).

As for THIS article, the term "cooking banana" is used quite extensively in specialist literature on banana agriculture. Especially those from the primary and secondary centers of diversity for bananas - Southeast Asia and East Africa, respectively (which also happens to be the regions where cooked bananas are a significant part of the daily diet). It's used in two senses:

These two different usages can be summarized in the footnote on this chapter on bananas in a textbook on biotechnology. I quote:
 * 1. As an all-encompassing term for banana cultivars used in cooking (i.e. including true plantains, excluding dessert and beer bananas). Example
 * 2. To distinguish bananas used in cooking that do not belong to the true plantain cultivar group (i.e. excluding true plantains, dessert, and beer bananas). Example 1, Example 2

 * "Plantain as a name for bananas which are eaten only when cooked, has been widely and loosely used to refer to both the AAB and ABB triploid groups of starchy bananas. According to Rowe (1984) there is now an effort being made to distinguish these two cooking groups by referring to only the AAB clones as "plantains" and using the term "cooking banana" for the ABB clones. In this chapter, the terms may be used interchangeably"

Depending on how we decide to delineate the topic, we could go with two options for the title, imo:

 * 1. Cooking bananas - has the advantage of not having to make arbitrary judgements on what can be considered "plantain" or not, as the topic would cover all bananas used in cooking. Regardless of what people call them, formally or informally.
 * 2. Plantains and cooking bananas - has the advantage of being botanically accurate, since the term "plantain" would then be strictly only used for true plantains, while everything else would be referred to as "cooking bananas"

Either way, I definitely agree that this article should not be moved to Plantain, and that "Cooking plantain" is a badly redundant title.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  12:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC) -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  12:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Support this well-argued proposal. I think that "Plantains and cooking bananas" would be best, but the English Wikipedia has frowned on titles linking two noun phrases by "and", so I go for "Cooking bananas". Peter coxhead (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I accept the arguments against Plantain (banana). As another idea - Plantain (cooking) as main article, with redirects to it from Cooking banana and Cooking plantain. All three pages already exist, two as redirects. (I think it's worth tossing ideas around until there's consensus.) Narky Blert (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely worth continuing to discuss this, given that there's essentially universal agreement that the current title is wrong. "Plantain (cooking)" is just as redundant as a title as "Cooking plantain". I agree with that "Cooking bananas" (or the singular "Cooking banana" if editors insist) is the best title. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Oppose - The point of having two articles is to have one on "bananas" and one on "plantains". Changing the title to "cooking banana", unless the other article (i.e. banana) is changed to "desert banana", defeats that purpose. It would make our entries on the topics even more confusing, and would reflect common usage even more poorly. The banana article says that worldwide, the distinction either doesn't exist or isn't useful, meaning our article can reflect usage in the Americas and Europe without being bias (see the third paragraph within the lead of banana, not sure how well sourced it is, but presuming). Plantains and cooking bananas is basically an XY issue as banana exists. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 00:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hence why "cooking banana" is the most ideal title in the first place. Not "plantain." As has been pointed out repeatedly, the latter term is highly ambiguous and the reason for all this mess.

 * "Cooking banana" is actual terminology (in contrast to "cooking plantain", which is something we made up), used by actual banana growers and scientists. And it immediately identifies what this article is about, even to a layman - a distinct, but informal, subset of banana cultivars characterized by their primary method of consumption. Using that title, we can comfortably discuss the term "plantain" (to the extent that it refers to bananas) within it; given that it is, itself, usually (but not always, see definition #2 above) treated as kind of cooking banana.

 * The term "banana" is not synonymous to "dessert banana" and the article on Banana is not solely about dessert bananas (I repeat: plantains are bananas, this isn't an XY issue). It is the general overview article of bananas, covering all the banana cultivars. So yes, we can create a separate article on dessert bananas if you really wanted to. Speaking of which, there is another group that we should create an article (or a subsection) for - beer bananas (currently a redirect).

 * Again, we have a precedent. An immediate comparison to this is that of the articles on Apple, which has three "children" articles: Cooking apple, Cider apple, and Table apple that correspond directly to the informal groupings of banana cultivars. Groupings that are accepted both in common usage and technical jargon (something that the term "plantain" doesn't satisfy). --  O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  04:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Support the move to Cooking banana if that is the compromise. --Bod (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I am fine with cooking banana or whatever other users prefer for the title of this article but want to reiterate my support for a DAB or CONCEPTDAB called simply "plantain". —  AjaxSmack   03:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Staple crop comparison table
Please see Template_talk:Comparison_of_major_staple_foods regarding a proposed change to the template transcluded in this article. SmartSE (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Plantain
Plantain and bananas are not the same thing. Neither are they referred to as cooking bananas. You can cook them or eat rhem raw depending on whether they ate ripe or not. Plantains belong to the same family as bananas but are indeed different in size, taste and texture. 76.69.81.75 (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Please read the opening of the article and the discussion at Banana. Both terms, banana and plantain, have multiple meanings that differ between countries that use these terms. Thus in the production table at Banana, you'll see that some countries separate bananas (generally meaning "dessert bananas") from plantains (generally but not always meaning "cooking bananas"), while others do not. Our articles are sourced, and the result of detailed discussions, which included some banana biologists. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Reversion
Hello Why did you revert edits by myself and ? Invasive Spices (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

 * This page has overlinks, red links, and recipes and blogs as references. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Public Writing Fall 2021 F1
— Assignment last updated by Marimilan (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cooking banana


text:
Judicature Acts

In the history of the courts of England and Wales, the Judicature Acts were a series of acts of Parliament, beginning in the 1870s, which aimed to fuse the hitherto split system of courts of England and Wales. The first two acts were the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66) and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 77), with a further series of amending acts (12 in all by 1899).

By the act of 1873 (ss. 3, 4), the Court of Chancery, the Court of King's Bench (known as the Queen's Bench when there is a female sovereign), the Court of Common Pleas, the Court of Exchequer, the High Court of Admiralty, the Court of Probate, and the Court of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes were consolidated into the Supreme Court of Judicature, subdivided into two courts: the "High Court of Justice" ("High Court"), with (broadly speaking) original jurisdiction, and the "Court of Appeal". Besides this restructuring, the objects of the act were threefold:

 * to combine the historically separate courts of common law and equity;
 * to establish for all divisions of the new Supreme Court a uniform system of pleading and procedure; and
 * to provide for the enforcement of the same rule of law in those cases where equity and common law recognised different rules.

The enactment was bold and revolutionary. By one section, the King's Bench, the Common Pleas (in which only serjeants formerly had the right of audience), and the Exchequer, and all their jurisdiction, whether criminal, legal, or equitable, were vested in the new court. The fusion of the systems of law and equity was not complete, however, as the Chancery (equity) division retained a distinct existence within the new court from the Queen's Bench (common law) division, having a certain range of legal questions under its exclusive control, and possessing to a certain extent a peculiar machinery of its own for carrying its decrees into execution. Nevertheless, all actions could now for the first time be initiated in a single High Court, and (subject to such special assignments of business as mentioned) could be tried in any of its divisions.

Common law and equity
The procedure of the common law courts had developed along highly technical and stylised lines. For example, to bring an action in the common law courts a litigant had to file a "writ" chosen from a set of standard forms. The court would only recognise certain "forms of action", and this led to the widespread use of legal fictions, with litigants disguising their claims when they did not fit into a standard recognised "form". The emphasis on rigid adherence to established forms led to substantial injustice.

On the other hand, the Court of Chancery (a court of equity) ran separately and parallel to the common law courts, and emphasised the need to "do justice" on the basis of the Lord Chancellor's conscience, softening the blunt instrument of the common law. However, by the nineteenth century proceedings before the Court of Chancery often dragged on and on, with cases not being decided for years at a time (a problem that was parodied by Charles Dickens in the fictional case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce in Bleak House). Also, the practice of the court departed from the original principle of the Lord Chancellor's conscience, wary of its legal superiority, clarified for once and for all 1615, wherever it conflicted with the common law. The court undertook self-restraint to safeguard its position. It elaborated the maxims of equity, many centuries old, that restrict its jurisdiction to certain fields of law, impose preconditions for suits/applications and curtail its remedies (particularly damages) which equity might award if there were no common law courts or statute.

The existence of these two separate systems in some of the more common areas of law enabled each party to go "forum shopping", selecting whichever of the two systems would most likely give judgment in his or her favour. A wealthy loser in one court would often try a court in the other system, for good measure.

The solution adopted by the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875 was to amalgamate the courts into one Supreme Court of Judicature which was directed to administer both law and equity. Pleadings became more relaxed, with the emphasis shifting from the "form" of action to the "cause" (or a set of causes) of action. Writs for action were filled out for a litigant stating facts, without any necessity of pigeonholing them into specific forms. The same court was now able to apply rules of the common law and the rules of equity, depending on what the substantial justice of a case required, and depending on what specific area of law the pleadings involved. The result was that, when the issues arising from the causes of action were decided in favour of one party, that party got relief. In 1978, over 100 years having passed from the passing of the Acts, Lord Denning observed that during that time,"the streams of common law and equity have flown together and combined so as to be indistinguishable the one from the other. We have no longer to ask ourselves what would the courts of common law or courts of equity have done before the Judicature Act? We have to ask ourselves: what should we do now so as to ensure fair dealing between the parties?"

Overview
There were originally three common law divisions of the High Court corresponding with the three former courts of common law. However, after the deaths of Lord Chief Baron Kelly (on 17 September 1880), and Lord Chief Justice Cockburn (on 10 November 1880), the Common Pleas and Exchequer divisions were consolidated (by an Order in Council of 10 December 1880) with the Queen's Bench division into a single division, under the presidency of the Lord Chief Justice of England, to whom, by the Judicature Act 1881 s. 25, all the statutory jurisdiction of the Chief Baron and the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas was transferred. The High Court, therefore, came to consist of the Chancery division, the common law division (known as the Queen's Bench division), and the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty division. To the Queen's Bench division was also attached, by an order of the Lord Chancellor dated 1 January 1884, the business of the London Court of Bankruptcy.

The keystone of the structure created by the Judicature Acts was a strong court of appeal. The House of Lords remained the last court of appeal, as before the Acts, but its judicial functions were transferred in practice to an appellate committee, consisting of the lord chancellor and other peers who had held high judicial office, and certain Lords of Appeal in Ordinary created by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876.

The High Court and Court of Appeal were formerly referred to as comprising the Supreme Court of Judicature, a concept wholly distinct from the current Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Pleading
The most important matter dealt with by the rules is the mode of pleading. The authors of the Judicature Act had before them two systems of pleading, both of which were open to criticism. The common law pleadings (it was said) did not state the facts on which the pleader relied, but only the legal aspect of the facts or the inferences from them, while the chancery pleadings were lengthy, tedious and to a large extent irrelevant and useless.

There was some exaggeration in both statements. In pursuing the fusion of law and equity which was the dominant legal idea of law reformers of that period, the framers of the first set of rules devised a system which they thought would meet the defects of both systems, and be appropriate for both the common-law and the chancery divisions. In a normal case, the plaintiff delivered his statement of claim, in which he was to set forth concisely the facts on which he relied, and the relief which he asked. The defendant then delivered his statement of defence, which he was to say whether he admitted or denied the plaintiff's facts (every averment not traversed being taken to be admitted), and any additional facts and legal defences on which he relied. The plaintiff might then reply, and the defendant rejoin, and so on until the pleaders had exhausted themselves. This system of pleading was not a bad one if accompanied by the right of either party to demur to his opponent's pleading, i.e. to say, "admitting all your averments of fact to be true, you still have no cause of action", or "defence" (as the case may be).

It may be, however, that the authors of the new system were too intent on uniformity when they abolished the common-law pleading, which, shorn of its abuses (as it had been by the Common Law Procedure Acts), was an admirable instrument for defining the issue between the parties though unsuited for the more complicated cases which are tried in chancery, and it might possibly have been better to try the new system in the first instance in the chancery division only.

It should be added that the rules contain provisions for actions being tried without pleadings if the defendant does not require a statement of claim, and for the plaintiff in an action of debt obtaining immediate judgment unless the defendant gets leave to defend. In the chancery division there are of course no pleadings in those matters which by the rules can be disposed of by summons in chambers instead of by ordinary suit as formerly.

The judges seem to have been dissatisfied with the effect of their former rules, for in 1883 they issued a fresh set of consolidated rules, which, with subsequent amendments, are those now in force. By these rules a further attempt was made to prune the exuberance of pleading. Concise forms of statement of claim and defence were given in the appendix for adoption by the pleader. It is true that these forms do not display a high standard of excellence in draftsmanship, and it was said that many of them were undoubtedly demurrable, but that was not of much importance.

Demurrers were abolished, and instead it was provided that any point of law raised by the pleadings should be disposed of at or after the trial, provided that by consent or order of the court they might be set down and disposed of before the trial (Order xxv. rules I, 2). This, in the opinion of Lord Davey in 1902, was a disastrous change. The right of either party to challenge his opponent in limine, either where the question between them was purely one of law, or where even the view of the facts taken and alleged by his opponent did not constitute a cause of action or defence, was a most valuable one, and tended to the curtailment of both the delay and the expense of litigation. Any possibility of abuse by frivolous or technical demurrers (as undoubtedly was formerly the case) had been met by powers of amendment and the infliction of costs.

Many of the most important questions of law had been decided on demurrer both in common law and chancery. Lord Davey considered that demurrer was a useful and satisfactory mode of trying questions in chancery (on bill and demurrer), and it was frequently adopted in preference to a special case, which requires the statement of facts to be agreed to by both parties and was consequently more difficult and expensive. It is obvious that a rule which makes the normal time for decision of questions at law the trial or subsequently, and a preliminary decision the exception, and such exception dependent on the consent of both parties or an order of the court, is a poor substitute for a demurrer as of right, and it has proved so in practice. The editors of the Yearly Practice for 1901 (Muir Mackenzie, Lushington and Fox) said (p. 272): "Points of law raised by the pleadings are usually disposed of at the trial or on further consideration after the trial of the issues of fact," that is to say, after the delay, worry and expense of a trial of disputed questions of fact which after all may turn out to be unnecessary.

The abolition of demurrers has also (it is believed) had a prejudicial effect on the standard of legal accuracy and knowledge required in practitioners. Formerly the pleader had the fear of a demurrer before him. Nowadays, he need not stop to think whether his cause of action or defence will hold water or not, and anything which is not obviously frivolous or vexatious will do by way of pleading for the purpose of the trial and for getting the opposite party into the box.

Juries
Another change was made by the rules of 1883, which was regarded by some common law lawyers as revolutionary. Formerly every issue of fact in a common law action, including the amount of damage, had to be decided by the verdict of a jury. "The effect of the rules of 1883," said Lord Lindley, who was a member of the rule committee, "was to make trial without a jury the normal mode of trial, except where trial with a jury is ordered under rules 6 or 7a, or may be had without an order under rule 2". The effect of the rules may be thus summarised:

 * In the Chancery division no trial by jury unless ordered by the judge.
 * Generally the judge could order trial without a jury of any cause or issue, which before the Judicature Act might have been so tried without consent of parties, or which involves prolonged investigation of documents or accounts, or scientific or local investigation.
 * Either party had a right to a jury in actions of slander, libel, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, seduction or breach of promise of marriage, upon notice without order;
 * or in any other action, by order.
 * Subject as above, actions were to be tried without a jury unless the judge, of his own motion, otherwise orders.

Abandonment
Among the specific changes to procedure that occurred as a result of enactment of the Judicature Acts was one impacting on the matter of "abandonment of an action". Such an abandonment involves the discontinuance of proceedings commenced in the High Court, typically emerging because a plaintiff is convinced that he will not succeed in a civil action. Prior to the 1875 Act, considerable latitude was allowed as to the time when a suitor might abandon his action, and yet preserve his right to bring another action on the same suit (see nonsuit); but since 1875 this right has been considerably curtailed, and a plaintiff who has delivered his reply (see pleading), and afterwards wishes to abandon his action, can generally obtain leave so to do only on condition of bringing no further proceedings in the matter.

Other changes
Further steps have been taken with a view to simplification of procedure. By Order xxx. rule i (as amended in 1897), a summons, called a summons for directions, has to be taken out by a plaintiff immediately after the appearance of the defendant, and upon such summons an order is to be made respecting pleadings, and a number of interlocutory proceedings. To make such an order at that early stage would seem to demand a prescience and intelligent anticipation of future events which can hardly be expected of a master, or even a judge in chambers, except in simple cases, involving a single issue of law or fact which the parties are agreed in presenting to the court. The effect of the rule is that the plaintiff cannot deliver his statement of claim, or take any step in the action without the leave of the judge. In Chancery cases the order usually made is that the plaintiff deliver his statement of claim, and the rest of the summons stand over, and the practical effect is merely to add a few pounds to the costs. It may be doubted whether, as applied to the majority of actions, the rule does not proceed on wrong lines, and whether it would not be better to leave the parties, who know the exigencies of their case better even than a judge in chambers, to proceed in their own way, subject to stringent provisions for immediate payment of the costs occasioned by unnecessary, vexatious, or dilatory proceedings. The order does not apply to admiralty cases or to proceedings under the order next mentioned.

The Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland) 1877 followed the same lines as the English Acts: the pre-existing courts were consolidated into a Supreme Court of Judicature, consisting of a High Court of Justice and a Court of Appeal. The Judicature Acts did not affect the Scottish judicial system, but the Appellate Jurisdiction Act included the Court of Session among the courts from which an appeal would lie to the House of Lords.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Judicature Acts


text:
Aki Berg

Aki-Petteri Arvid Berg (born July 28, 1977) is a Finnish former amateur ice hockey defenceman. He was drafted third overall by the Los Angeles Kings in the 1995 NHL Entry Draft. He played both for the Kings and the Toronto Maple Leafs over nine seasons and has represented Team Finland twice at the Winter Olympics, winning a bronze medal at the 1998 Nagano Olympics, a silver medal at the 2004 World Cup of Hockey in which Finland lost in the finals to host Canada, and a silver medal at the 2006 Torino Olympics.

Career
Berg began his professional career in the 1993–1994 season as a 16-year-old, playing 6 games for TPS in the Finnish SM-liiga with 3 assists and a +4 rating. Berg was, at the time, the youngest player ever to play in an SM-liiga game (has since been surpassed by Jesse Joensuu, who was 15 years old in his debut). Berg also spent time in Kiekko-67 of the Finnish first division for 12 games during the season, scoring 1 goal, 1 assist, 16 penalty minutes and a -8 rating. He also represented Finland in the European Junior Championships, scoring 6 points in 5 games. The next season, Berg spent time in TPS's B and A-junior teams, also dressing for 5 games in the men's team. He also played 20 games again for Kiekko-67, scoring 12 points. Berg was again named to the European Junior Championships roster, getting one assist in 5 games.

Berg gained the attention of NHL scouts due to his large frame, heavy shot, physical play and good mobility. He was drafted 3rd overall by the Los Angeles Kings, behind fellow defencemen Bryan Berard and Wade Redden. Berg, a highly touted prospect, was described in The Hockey News' draft review issue by Kings' then GM Sam McMaster as "Hitting like Scott Stevens and skating like Paul Coffey". Berg moved to the NHL next season as an 18-year-old.

Berg played most of his first NHL season with the Kings, but was sent to the team's IHL-affiliate Phoenix Roadrunners for 20 games. In 51 games for the Kings, Berg had no goals, 7 assists, 29 penalty minutes and a -13 rating. In 20 games for the Roadrunners, Berg had no goals, 3 assists, 18 penalty minutes and a -10 rating. Berg also played two playoff games for the Roadrunners, scoring no points.

In his second NHL season, Berg again had difficulties staying on the Kings' lineup. He nonetheless raised his level of play, scoring his first two goals. He played 41 games for the Kings, scoring two goals and adding 6 assists, while getting 24 penalty minutes and a -9 rating. In 23 games for the Roadrunners, Berg had 1 goal, 3 assists, 21 penalty minutes and a -9 rating. During the season Berg also represented Finland in the World Junior Championships, having 2 assists in 8 games.

In the 1997-98 season, Berg finally became an NHL regular, playing 72 games for the Kings, with no goals, 8 assists, 61 PIM and a +3 rating. Berg adopted the role of a defensive defenceman, despite high expectations of his offensive potential. The Kings made the playoffs, which saw Berg raise his game. The team's playoff run came out short, losing in the first round to the St. Louis Blues in four games. In those four games, Berg had no goals, 3 assists, no penalty minutes and a +3 rating. Berg also represented Finland in the 1998 Nagano Olympics, where he was an important defensive player in Finland's bronze medal team.

Berg returned to his hometown team TPS for the next season, playing 48 games. He scored 8 goals, added 7 assists and had 137 penalty minutes and a +5 rating. The team, along with Berg, won the Finnish championship, but Berg was unable to play in the decisive game due to a dirty hit in another game, which he was suspended for. Berg was a part of the Finnish national team in the world championships, playing 12 games without points.

Berg returned to the NHL for the next season, which turned out to be his best so far. In 70 games he had 3 goals, 13 assists, 45 penalty minutes and a -1 rating. The Kings again made the playoffs, where Berg only played 2 games without points. He was again part of the Finnish world championships-team.

The 2000-01 season was again tough for Berg. After 47 games with the Kings where he had just 4 points, he was traded to Toronto on March 13, 2001 for Adam Mair and a 2nd round draft pick (later used to select Mike Cammalleri), as the Leafs wished for an injection of youth into a rapidly aging roster. In 12 games for Toronto, he scored 3 goals and had a -6 rating. In 11 playoff games, he had 2 assists.

In his first full season with Toronto, Berg saw more ice time and was a solid fifth or sixth defenceman. In 81 games, Berg scored 1 goal, had 10 assists, 46 penalty minutes and a career-high +14 rating. The team also had a successful playoff run, making it to the conference finals, where they were beaten in six games by the Carolina Hurricanes. In 20 playoff games, Berg had one assist.

Berg played in Toronto for 3 more seasons, after retiring from the NHL due to family reasons. During the 2004-2005 NHL lockout, Berg played for Timrå of the Swedish Elite League. He was the team's top all-around defenceman, scoring 20 points in 46 games and having a +11 rating. After retiring from the NHL, Berg signed with his hometown club TPS. Berg was the team captain and top defenceman for 3 seasons, but was heavily ridden with injuries in his last two seasons. After playing just ten games in 2010–2011, he announced his retirement from professional hockey on his birthday on July 28, 2011. Berg finished his NHL career with 606 regular season games played, 15 goals and 70 assists for 85 points with a +/- rating of -7 and 374 penalty minutes. In 54 career post-season games he recorded 1 goal and 7 assists for 8 points with a +2 rating and 47 penalty minutes.

Personal life
In 2015, Berg is working as the equipment manager for both TPS and Team Finland. He is married to Virve Berg. The couple have two children, Niclas and Nella.

title: Aki Berg