Talk:Phaseolus vulgaris

message: This layout was almost perfect, and I'd like to work towards restoring it. I understand the tables needed updating, and thank you for that, but I don't see why you shuffled their format in such a non-standard manner. Maybe it looked right on your screen, but I assure you that they were all over the place on my high-res desktop, and only marginally better on a mid-res tablet. Some whitespace is much better than floating tables fighting for space with images on the right margin. No such user (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: . I was judging alignment and white space on my high-res screen and chromebook where both displayed my revision as fine. I use centered column numbers on numerous other tables with no problems, and will retry to center these to improve the column display. Please check. Otherwise, I'll leave this alone now as a compromise. Thanks for your input. --Zefr (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table layout 

message: All wild members of the species have a climbing habit, but many cultivars are classified either as bush beans or dwarf beans, or as pole beans or climbing beans, depending on their style of growth. These include the kidney bean, the navy bean, the pinto bean, and the wax bean.
Possible antecedents: 
* wild members of the species — main topic antecedent 
* wild/cultivated beans (collectively) of "the climbing habit" — thematic antecedent
* many cultivars — grammatical antecedent 
* climbing beans — proximal antecedent (if "these" belonged after a semicolon) 
None of these solutions are anywhere close to acceptable in this venue. — MaxEnt 19:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous 'these' 

message: Seriously? , what are you talking about? The topic is beans, so there are no "primary sources" since beans have no way to produce any sources at all. Your insistence otherwise is absurd. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The problematic part, in my view, is the speculation – we don't report suppositions. So definitely remove the clause beginning . A speculation in a secondary source would be no different. Primary or secondary isn't the issue here. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ...I'm sorry, what? This is the interpretation of a finding of a research study, by the researchers themselves. Of course their conclusion is phrased as a "suggestion" - such conclusions always are. I have yet to see an ecology paper that does not draw its main conclusion by using some variation of the phrase "Our results indicate..." or "These findings suggest...". It's absolutely not an indication of unsupportable speculation. Jeepers. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is whether the suggestion is noteworthy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference; we don't attempt to report everything ever said about a topic. In my judgement, the suggestion is based on too little evidence to be noteworthy. Others may disagree. So what is the consensus view? Peter coxhead (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What Peter said. If beans were widely known for their bio-accumulation of heavy metals and already used for remediation of polluted sites, that would certainly be recorded in a secondary source pertaining e.g. bioremediation; for example, white mulberry (Morus alba) and Thlaspi are mentioned in Mycorrhizal bioremediation as (relatively) proven agents. But here, it's just a suggestion, and I agree that there's too little evidence to justify inclusion. Remember Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. No such user (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

text: ...digging deeper, we have an article on hyperaccumulators with three extensive lists of known species, and P. vulgaris is not mentioned in any (Phaseolus acutifolius is in #3). Granted, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but the authors seem to have invested a lot of research and the common bean would surely be an obvious candidate for inclusion if it were well-known. No such user (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bean-haters? 

message: I added the nutritional tables for both green beans and dry beans, because they are so different in nutritional content. Could someone put those two tables side by side for easy comparisons? I don't know how to do that. Thank you! WikiUser70176 (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutritional tables 

message: I see that this issue has been raised on the talk page before and got no response.
The two kinds of beans are similar and largely interchangeable, but red beans are smaller and taste different. If they were the same, then they would be packaged and sold as such.
I think some of these sources are reliable enough that I am tempted to be bold and change the article myself. Richard K. Carson (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: the names used in commercial sources can be confusing. The term "red kidney" is used in several of the sources you've listed, so to say that "red beans" are not the same as "kidney beans" is tricky. However, I agree that a distinction is made in US sources between at least two kinds of reddish kidney-shaped beans, larger ones and smaller ones. Quite how to capture this in the table isn't clear to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red beans are not the same as kidney beans 

message: Cultivars and varieties Table row Peruano can be merged into table row Yellow (Enola type), which covers the same bean in more detail. ChgoJohn (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultivars and varieties table: redundant section for "Peruano" covers same bean as Yellow (Enola type).