Talk:List of coffee varieties

message: This talk page had a number of either old discussions or new discussions that have since been resolved.  I have archived everything to clean up space here so we can start new discussions here.  Michael.C.Wright (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: The arabica varieties and cultivars table concept possibly has flawed implementation. For one thing, as this table is ostensibly just for Arabica, the inclusion of a species column is somewhat confusing. Secondarily, the charrier coffee species is listed here, ostensbily as an arabica variety, while claiming the species is not named, and instead providing its species name as the cultivar name, while also neglecting a link to the existing charrier coffee entry on English Wikipedia. Presumably charrier coffee should not even be in this arabica table.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biturica (talk • contribs) 17:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed arabica table 

message: Well, yeah, you're right, but if this section were written according to such specifications the chart would be 20 or 30 pages long. The primary coffee specie is the Arabica, A.K.A. Coffea Arabica. Nearly all coffees sold in retail stores are this specie. There are blends of Arabica beans grown in various regions with Robusta, A.K.A. Coffea Canephora, added. Then we get into the mix because some of the beans are not varietals, but are hybrids of Arabica and Robusta. To make matters worse, within the one Arabica specie there are several varietal and estate beans, each with its own flavor and aroma profile depending upon rainfall, elevation, soil composition, pest infestation and chemical presence, and there are at least 3 Robusta varietals.
I must have missed it, but I don't see a charrier specie. You said, "the charrier coffee species is listed here, ostensbily as an arabica variety, while claiming the species is not named, and instead providing its species name as the cultivar name". It uses the cultivar name and states the specie is not named. Charrier is not a specie, and the article chart does not state it is. In fact, some botanists call it C. Charrieriana, while others call it C. Canephora, but as far as I know it has never been identified as C. Arabica. 
Please let me correct your statement, "an arabica variety, while claiming the species is not named." Arabica is not a variety, it is the specie.
For this kind of article, it would better serve the topic to keep it simple rather than splitting hairs to put all the suspected sub-species into their proper places. Truth be told, there are about 74 species of Genus Coffea.
The problem with completing this article is that citations are near impossible. Coffee is one of those things that is taken on faith because of the several characteristics of each of the hybrids, estates and varietals within each of the species. If you were to cross reference each of the 7 or 8 of the profile characteristics based on flavor and aroma of each of the rainfall, elevation, soil composition, pest infestation and chemical presence considerations around the world this would not be an article. This is why such a book has never been written. It's far too complicated and constantly changing. It's hard to prove a positive that is so changeable in so many areas, each with its own profile, and it's near impossible to prove a negative. MR2David (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Easy to Dispute, Too Hard to Resolve