Talk:Key lime

message: I noticed that an anonymous individual with one en.wikipedia.org contribution changed a number of the species references from "aurantifolia" to "aurantiifolia" (adding a double i), inlcuding in the Danish article link.  Is there any precedent for which spelling is established? ENeville 21:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furtive vandalism or "test". Common problem. --Wetman 17:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it is a common problem.  I think there may be more here though.  At first I wasn't sure if a Dane had done a cross language link (00:20, 6 June 2006 211.30.21.193) and imposed a regional spelling in what they thought they ran across as a spelling error, but when I checked both spellings turn up quite a bit, from what I can see.  A UN organization page lists a mixture of spellings, and a USDA page has both, with an unelaborated distinction.  I think in the meantime I'll put the different spellings/names so all text searches will hit. ENeville 20:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "''aurantifolia''" vs. "''aurantiifolia''" vs. "x ''aurantiifolia'' Swingle" etc. 

message: The current image in the infobox, :Image:Lime CDC.jpg, doesn't look like a Key lime to me. It looks like a regular Persian lime. (Not that I claim to be an expert on limes, or anything; I just thought Key limes were yellower.) The original source just talks about "limes," which seems like corroborating evidence that the image isn't of Key limes. Does anyone have a GFDL photo of (sliced and unsliced) Key limes for the infobox? --Quuxplusone, 23:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree that it looks like a store-bought "Persian" Lime. That green on the rind is mostly dye, however. Key Limes are scarecely larger than a giant olive. --Wetman 08:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. It leads to the false impression that key limes are green, when they are bright yellow (when ripe).  If I take a photo of a real bright yellow key lime could it be used instead of this ignorance-spreading lime, or do botanical articles have to use the standard photo the source comes with?   -   Marc Averette 01:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Can anyone create a page on keylime pie please?Zigzig20s 13:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it already exists, Key lime pie. Zzorse 14:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, can anyone redirect it from keylime pie too then please? Zigzig20s 15:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Zzorse 15:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.Zigzig20s 15:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Possibly merely a misunderstanding of what WP:POV actually means. If it's a mainstream, uncontroversial general statement, it does not violate Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view.--Wetman 03:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's best known for that in the Keys, the place the lime is named after.  It's irrelevant what it's best known for in the UK, since the Keys aren't in the UK.  What's it's best known for in the place it's named after should take precedence.  Agreed not POV  -  Marc Averette 23:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The line I removed simply stated that it was "best known as the ingredient to key lime pie", which is simply wrong from an international perspective (it isn't best known as this in many places). The line that has replaced it, though, is far far better. Patch86 13:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This lime is NOT known as the Tahitian Lime. Persian Limes are also known as Tahitian Limes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.196.206 (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key lime pie? 

message: The article refers to the Persian lime as "more common" than the Key lime.  The Persian lime article, on the other hand, says that the key lime "has a wider agricultural distribution worldwide."  The Persian lime is more common in the USA, and I suspect that this is what caused the contributor to label it as "more common."  209.204.188.184 (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional bias? 

message: I don't think that describing all the variants of the species naming is worth the syntactic abortion that are nested parentheses. Whoever begs to disagree should put the important variants back in in a saner way. --dV 217.23.248.169 (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed wording of intro sequence 

message: I notice in the History section that reference is made to the West Indies, including the Florida Keys, as the historical route of the key lime.  I note that no mention of The Bahamas as a part of this route is made.  Several anecdotal sources (mainly family histories of Abaconians whose families later moved to the Florida Keys) suggest that the "Bahamian" lime migrated to the Keys along with these families. 
I'm not sure how I would go about providing a verifiable source for this.
Bhmsinfo (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History?? 

message: This is an article predominantly about a US food ingredient rather than the plant and fruit Citrus aurantifolia. This plant is native to the Indo-Malayan region, is extensively cultivated both in that area and in others outside the US. Yet the title of the article, the lead paragraph and most of the history section focuses on US issues. To be blunt this is Systemic Bias. I wish to edit the article to reflect the global nature of this plant and fruit, however I am unsure how to change the title. What do people think? How do you change the title?Brunswicknic (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I only encountered this article tangentially in looking up something else, so your point had not struck me with great force. Still, I must admit that it had subliminally bothered me, and that on reflection I think that what you say is perfectly correct. It occurs to me however, that your approach might be expected to invite unconstructive friction. For one thing, the title of the article as it stands is simply "key lime", and, without any charge of provincialism, there is no reason not to have such an article under such a title, however widely other varieties might occur elsewhere and in other contexts. My suggestion is that either on your own, or in cooperation with kindred spirits, you draft a pilot article on the topic Citrus aurantifolia, and when you think it can stand on its own, simply edit the current article on Citrus aurantifolia, which is a redirection. change other redirects to link to Citrus aurantifolia instead of Key lime. Link appropriately to key lime in your new article, and insert appropriate links to your Citrus aurantifolia article in the key lime article, and there can be no valid objection, either from authors of the current text, or from anyone who really was looking for the key lime article in the first place. As an approach that seems fairly painless and adequate to me. After all, how may folks who might want to look up Citrus aurantifolia would want to find it under "key lime" anyway?  JonRichfield (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not NPOV 

message: Dear readers
I am a student from ETH Zürich and we had the chance to upgrade an article on wikipeda. My addition suggestions are concerning mostly agricultural aspects of Citrus aurantiifolia. The information are coming from a handbook (alternative cash crops) and some research articles. I kindly ask you to give comments to my suggestions.
Thank you very much. Kind regards Ssvenja (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition suggestions

message: Ssvenja, I don't know how you will like this, but I did a quick pass and this was what I came up with. Feel welcome to use whatever parts you like. Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Amendments to addition suggestions

message: @ JonRichfield: Thank you very much for your corrections. I like them very much - it creates a nice flow for the reader. I will upload the paragraphs in the following days. Best, Ssvenja (talk) 08:47, 02 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ssvenja: You are sooo welcome. Any time. Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit suggestions

message: The article opens with "The Key lime (Citrus aurantiifolia) is ...", in which the word "Key" is capitalized. This seems reasonable, since the lime is named after the Florida Keys, which is a place name and thus seems like it should be capitalized. But elsewhere in the article, "key" is sometimes lowercased. Which should it be? —BarrelProof (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed all occurrences to "Key lime", it looks better and is probably what the WP MoS would say. Merriam-Webster says "key lime noun, often capitalized K" but the AP Stylebook spell it "Key lime". jonkerz ♠talk 23:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of "Key" 

message: Well OK obviously we can’t force everyone to change the name. But the name “key lime” isn’t really used much outside the Americas. And it makes sense not to: it was only 20th century marketing that made everyone think there was something Floridan about its origin.  The fruit is “native to Southeast Asia” as the article clearly says.  It is weird that just because it was successfully transplanted to the Florida Keys that the entire fruit should be re-named.  The article illustrates this by showing a photo of limes in India (where they are native) and yet still insisting on referring to them as Key Limes.  It would be good to know what people outside the Americas call them. Bacon Man (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the name to Thai Lime 

message: There is apparent contradictory information in this article. The header describes Key Lime as a hybrid between C. hystrix × C. medica, whereas the taxonomy section describes the parentage as C. micrantha × C. medica.
Micrantha and Hystrix are discrete species so one of these pieces of information is wrong, or one of the sections has been worded incorrectly or misleadingly. Rick4676 (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy