Talk:Dipteryx alata

Moved and redirected to new topic: Baru Tree. Baru has already been taken.

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowzee (talk • contribs) 21:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

An improper move that was a copy & paste that wasn't discussed and certainly isn't in line with WP:FLORA. I fixed the page with a history merge and moved it back to the species name. Rkitko ^(talk) 04:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Baru seed

As far as the new article "baru seed" can attest to, the name "baru seed" has been coined in 2012 by Portuguese-speaking authors in a food science paper. The other paper cited uses "baru almond". A company calling itself "Baru Baron" has started marketing this as a product in Canada as of 2018, promoting it as "the new superfood". The Wikipedia article appears to closely parrot the marketing by this company. I would say the name "baru seed" has little historical usage, though with superfood fads who knows how excited consumers will get.86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This sounds about right. The baru seed article seems pretty unsourced and headers read more like a guide on how to eat them as of now. Not sure if it has enough separate notability to warrant a standalone article like Sunflower seed. Even quinoa just has the food product information integrated into general biological information. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 04:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Baru seed should be merged here. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140627000000/http://www.iucnredlist.org to http://www.iucnredlist.org

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Can I single reference be at two places?

Greetings all. I am a newbie, and currently trying to learn the art of editing. While I was updating the references, I realized that one reference namely [Siqueira, Egle Machado de Almeida; Marin, Alinne Martins Ferreira; da Cunha, Marcela de Sá Barreto; Fustinoni, Adriana Medeiros; de Sant'Ana, Lívia Pimentel; Arruda, Sandra Fernandes (January 2012). "Consumption of baru seeds [Dipteryx alata Vog.], a Brazilian savanna nut, prevents iron-induced oxidative stress in rats". Food Research International. 45 (1): 427–433.] appears at two places - at no. 39 in the references, as well as under "Further Reading". Since I was updating the same reference, I needed to edit it at two places. I then realized, that having the same reference at two places may be cumbersome, especially if we have several references at two places. Kindly guide, thanks. Currently I added the SCID number only at one place. Neotaruntius (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Neotaruntius: Welcome of Wikipedia. It's always promising when new editors care about references. There is a simple mechanism to used references multiple times, as follows:

• To repeat a reference, it should be named, e.g. <ref name=Siquiera2012>TEXT OF CITATION</ref>.
• To reused the reference use <ref name=Siquiera2012 /> (note the slash before the closing angled bracket)

If the reference is cited inline in the text, then there is no need to add it to the further reading. That is probably a left over from a time where inline citations weren't used as much on Wikipedia.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jts1882:Thanks for your kind words. I updated the reference name to <ref name="Siqueira_2012">, adding the year also, in order to further narrow the chance of name/reference duplication. And then went to "Further reading" section and replaced the first reference [which was the duplicate reference] with the syntax that you told me. But all I got was this sign "", which obviously is not the same as what we had earlier. I was expecting a repetition of entire updated reference with S2CID, that I had added. So I did not dare disturb it [I had done everything in preview mode]. Kindly help.Neotaruntius (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC) Neotaruntius (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

That is the expected behaviour. <ref name=Siquiera2012 /> produces an inline reference using the same number and linking to the reference list. It's designed to be used in the text body of the article. It shouldn't be used in the further reading section. The repeat there should just be deleted. The article has 43 references and there is nothing special about that one.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jts1882 - Good idea. But since I am a beginner, it might be taken as a disruptive behavior by a beginner. There must be some better way to do it. Thanks. Neotaruntius (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jts1882 - Actually, deleting that reference will indeed have a problem. Signification I had guessed it. The latter reference has an INIST number [25499152]. The inline reference does not have it. Conversely, I added S2CID to inline, but not to the "further reading" section, guessing this problem. So deleting it is certainly not the solution - at least as far as I can see. Either there should be some way, that the inline reference should be reproducible as it is seen inline [probably by some code], or else, we somehow consolidate all information in one single reference, and think about deleting the other [the latter]. Kindly suggest. Thanks and Regards. Neotaruntius (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Just add all the parameters to the inline version. I've add the INIST number there and deleted the further reading reference.

All newcomers make mistakes and citation mistakes are common for experienced editors. If you explain what you are trying to do in your edit comments, I don't think you need worry about being considered a disruptive editor.  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jts1882. Thanks I understand now. Yes, we must explain our intentions in the edit comments. Just the same, the idea was to make the page better and you did it. In the process, I learnt. Thanks again. Neotaruntius (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

References