Talk:Potato

semi protected edit request: smashed potatoes

There's nothing New England about a smashed potato (source, a proud New Englander would be happy to claim credit were it at all possible) so that either needs a cite or just take those couple of words out and leave the smashed potato in. You can google it, it ain't. 2603:8001:D3F0:87E0:0:0:0:10D0 (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

For a faster response, add the template for the request,

on that note

 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. Geardona (talk to me?) 17:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Comparison to other staple foods and nutritional content

I think the part about nutritional content in this article could be clearer. Many articles about food has a simple table of the sort "Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)" which is really good when trying to do a quick approximate lookup.

Having a huge table comparing dry weight to other staple foods seems a bit out of place in an article that's primarily about potatoes. To me that table fits much better in the article about staple food Staple food#Comparison of 10 staple foods where it also exists, rather than being in lots of individual articles for each staple food. To me, the article about Cassava for instance is much easier to use for looking up nutrition while still offering a link to the staple food comparison. Bricksprovidecoal (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Bricksprovidecoal - Agree about removing the large nutrition table. Use the cassava nutrition section and table format as an example, and WP:FIXIT. Here are the USDA nutrition data for a raw potato. Watching for your edit. Zefr (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Without commenting of the desirability of the huge table, it may be suspect. I have looked at just one value, raw sweet potato beta-carotene. Table says 36996μg now; USDA says 8510μg. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Pol098: Yes and 77.3 % water. (8510/22.7) x 100 = 37488. I converted everything to dry weight after first proposing it nine years ago. It's impossible to fairly compare potatoes (and sweet potatoes) with cereals if you do not account for the vastly different water contents. SmartSE (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, makes perfect sense. I noticed the "raw sweet potato" (G) footnote, but the enormous beta-carotene number caught my eye eye and I missed the (blatantly obvious) "dry weight". Maybe I was just a bit stupid, or maybe a comment for the table would be justified? "Many published tables show weight including water content, which is much lower", Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

What would editors think of collapsing the section and table for comparison to other staple foods and just having a specific section on nutrition for both raw and boiled potatoes (FoodData Central has several choices for cooked)? It seems this is the clearer presentation for the common user, as opposed to the comparison table which unfocuses attention on potato nutrition. I would be happy to compose this revision and have the USDA table for cooked potato as the main data presentation. Zefr (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Zefr: Sounds reasonable to me. I doubt that there is much difference between raw and cooked, but if there is any data on different ways of cooking them, e.g. fries vs. boiled, that would be good to include. More generally, it would be good to mention how some nutrients vary widely between varieties. This source is probably too primary but shows what I mean, but there is hopefully a better source out there. SmartSE (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

With this edit, I used FoodData Central for nutrient data of boiled potatoes with skin, assuming this is the most common cooking method. Data are also available for boiled from frozen, and microwaved with/without skin. Apologies - there are no USDA data for raw potato nutrient contents - an unlikely preparation for eating. There are no nutrient data for French fries or different potato varieties. Open into how we make this better. Zefr (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks good but on my screen at least, it does result in a lot of white space. Something else worth including is patatin which isn't even mentioned yet and include how potatoes are a complete protein source (i.e. containing all the essential amino acids) per [1]. The GI info is also poorly sourced (primary) and simplistic, something like this would be a better source. Some mention of the role of preventing scurvy during the Irish famine and WW2 may also be worthy of mention. SmartSE (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The comparison table is clumsy and unnecessary, presenting much more information than the common user would want. It's causing the white space in the presence of the potato nutrition table. I recommend deleting it and the introductory content with it.

On your other suggestions, I'll leave those for now for other editors to include. Zefr (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The comparison table is included in most of the other crop articles, but I agree it is a lot of information and {{see also}} link would be an alternative way to show it. Looking at this it states Note that there are two sets of data for raw (uncooked potatoes) - USDA and FDA. The USDA data are specific to the potato type analyzed, while the FDA data represent a “market-basket” analytic approach, utilizing a weighted average of the nutrients found in potato varieties available to US consumers. Because these values can vary so widely, it would be better to use the FDA data but we also need to add the caveat that the values are for typical US potatoes. This seems to be an up to date version although oddly the values are out of date according to this source. The downside of that data is some values are only as %DV so need to be recalculated to give grams. This may be a better source though it's USDA but based off 8 samples. It's raw and without skin, but raw is probably better to use since cooking method can affect nutrient levels, particularly vitamin C e.g.. Another slight tangent, is that we should include some discussion of nutrition of the skin as it's a common misconception that it contains significant amounts of nutrients this from Potatoes USA and this from growingproduce.com discuss that but neither are great sources. Apologies if I'm overthinking this all! SmartSE (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh and the text should also clarify that nearly all of the carbs are starch. SmartSE (talk) 08:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

1) I'll move the comparison table to See also. 2) as people do not eat raw potatoes, I assumed this is why the USDA-FoodData Central (FDC) site no longer has nutrient data for raw (at one time, it did). This also justifies use of the nutrition table for cooked potatoes as representative of what people consume. Most or all (?) of our plant-food articles with nutrition sections use the USDA-FDC tables, where analyses have been done. 3) As we don't have reliable nutrition data for non-American potatoes, I think we have to stay with this and not be too concerned with slight geographic or cultivar variation. 4) likewise, for nutrients in skin specifically, there are no reliable sources other than the USDA-FDC tables where skin was included - should we have a separate nutrition table for this? I didn't think it was justified. 5) I've looked through PubMed, but don't see better sources to discuss potato starch more than we say in the paragraph on GI. Zefr (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2023

I wanted to add that a new potato species has been found in the northern half of Ireland. AidenPlayz835 (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Add Swedish to the earth-apple part

In some variants of Swedish, jordäpple (jordappel, jolappel) is or has been used for potatoes, so "at least 7" can be changed to "at least 8". Source: https://svenska.se/saob/?sok=jord%C3%A4pple#U_J1_193122 I'm guessing Norwegian could also be added to that list, but I don't have a source for that. 84.216.33.26 (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. You can add this yourself. Invasive Spices (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

wikt:no:jordeple — Invasive Spices (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

How? I don't have an account and this page is semi-protected. 84.216.33.26 (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see that. I've added {{Edit semi-protected}} for you. Invasive Spices (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. This is English Language Wikipedia. Why do we even have that paragraph on the name in SOME other languages? HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• I agree. I don't like these – vandalism magnets, nationalistic edit war magnets, usually lacking refs. Nonetheless if we have some, we can have Swedish & Norwegian. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2023

Add link to archival YouTube video from Ontario government illustrating potato growing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNmHrJ-9Wcc&t=63s JoelDickau (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@JoelDickau: Not done That does not meet the requirements for including external links. SmartSE (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you please clarify? I contend this meets the second requirement of what can normally linked, in that it is a stable link to a piece of archival media relevant to the entry's subject. JoelDickau (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@JoelDickau: There are thousands of videos about potato farming on youtube and tens of thousands more related to potatoes. Wikipedia is not a collection of links though and I see nothing particularly special about this video. I contend this meets the second requirement The second part of WP:ELYES refers to An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work which is not at all relevant to this situation. SmartSE (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

History of pronunciation

The modern day pronunciation of /pəˈteɪtoʊ/ ("pə-TAY-toh") appears to consistent throughout the English-speaking world (the major nations within it anyway) but the alternative broad "A" pronunciation /pəˈtɑːtoʊ/ ("pə-TAH-toh") familiarised in popular culture by the song Let's Call the Whole Thing Off potentially raises questions over "who says 'potahto'". I have heard the broad "A" "potahto" pronunciation in some episodes of the animated show Back to the Future (TV series) in scenes set in the United States in the 19th century or earlier suggesting the word could have been pronounced that way back then also considering Let's Call the Whole Thing Off was written in 1937. According to the this article the word "potato" is derived from the Spanish "patata" which is pronounced with a broad "A" so the English word could have been pronounced this way before transitioning to the long "A" pronunciation familiar today though it could have been gradual considering there is a generational divide for as long as language evolves. On the relevance to this article, I think there should be a section explaining this if it is true considering the potential for questions over this especially of there is still a difference between accents although I doubt there are any major formal differences like with tomato. Tk420 (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I see more differences in pronouncing the final "o" than the "a" HiLo48 (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Purely anecdotal, but i have always assumed that Ira Gershwin was merely making a small joke (the lack of difference in pronunciation) for the sake of a rhyme. I have never seen anything other than the song with that difference in the "-a-" sound. Unless there is something in an RS referencing different pronunciations, i suggest we ignore it. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I found an article about this on Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/potayto,_potahto) which states "Supposedly uses the American English and British English pronunciations of the word potato, by analogy of tomato (see tomayto, tomahto). Unlike tomato, only the former pronunciation is used in either American nor British English". Besides, I found a discussion about this on Talk:Let's Call the Whole Thing Off#PotAHto in case anyone is interested. Tk420 (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I have heard it pronounced "pə-TAY-tə" or "tater" but these are colloquialisms when "pə-TAY-toh" appears to be the formal pronunciation more or less throughout the English-speaking world. This could however be noted if a section on pronunciation is included. Tk420 (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced / suspect claims in the Culinary section

−

Unlike many foods, potatoes can also be easily cooked in a [[microwave oven]] and still retain nearly all of their nutritional value, provided they are covered in ventilated [[plastic wrap]] to prevent moisture from escaping; this method produces a meal very similar to a steamed potato, while retaining the appearance of a conventionally baked potato.

+

Potatoes can also be cooked in a [[microwave oven]] to produce a meal very similar to a steamed potato, while retaining the appearance of a conventionally baked potato.

IMO there is a lot wrong with this as-is, and these claims shouldn't be included in a section where the only source is the wikibooks potato cookbook. First of all, the "unlike many foods" implies either that there are many foods that lose nutritional value when microwaved or that many foods cannot be easily cooked in microwaves. While the latter interpretation could be argued owing to the vagueness of the 'many', it's at least misleading, and the former interpretation seems to be plainly false (there are many sources for this eg https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7047080/).

The claim that they must be wrapped in ventilated plastic wrap in order to retain nutrients is also highly suspect and unsourced, and I don't see any reason why it should be the case. Water lost as vapor isn't likely to contain significant amounts of water-soluble nutrients so whether or not moisture is retained during cooking should be immaterial from a nutritional perspective.

I could see the argument for leaving the reference to plastic wrap in sans the nutritional claims since it is a common method of microwaving potatoes, but considering it's only one of a variety of methods that produce relatively similar results (like microwaving unwrapped or wrapped in a damp paper towel) I'd suggest it be removed entirely. Emnmmmmma (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

List of cultivars?

Does this article need such a long list of taxonomic names for potato varieties in the Biology subsection? It seems unnecessarily long to me, and odd to have to scroll so far to get past it in the middle of the article. Kyesel (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)