Talk:Apple

Hatnote

@MSMST1543, per the hatnote, the companies called 'Apple' are in the 'Other uses' page already, don't add them here, thanks. Please stop ignoring and replacing this text. Remsense ‥ 论 06:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the hatnote is correct and sufficient as it is. Edit-warring is forbidden on Wikipedia; you are lucky to have got away with only one formal warning on this matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for clarifying, I was about to ask if Apple Inc. should be added to the redirect notice. Some amoeba (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

"Culture of apple" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Culture of apple has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 19 § Culture of apple until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Deletion discussion underway for Isaac Newton's apple tree

If interested Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Newton's apple tree, and/or improve or disprove the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Should breakdown of the types of carbohydrates be included?

Glucose, fructose, sucrose or whatever.

I came here looking for it. But I checked orange and banana and that information isn't included either. The Fig article does breakdown glucose and fructose levels.

Maybe a link to Table 1 in the Fructose article. I'd add that specific link if I knew how. A link to fructose wouldn't do it. And although Table 1 is referred to, it's not labeled. MtnBiker (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

The USDA source for the nutrition table data doesn't give separate values for sugars in the general "apple, raw" analysis. The breakdown is generally about 8 g of fructose and 2 g each for glucose and sucrose, as shown for 5 apple varietals in the USDA Foundation data.

Data for individual sugars are not typically shown in fruit and vegetable articles, possibly because this detail is not of general interest to most encyclopedia users. Zefr (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Hatnote

It's absurd that there isn't a hatnote for Apple Inc. Yes, it is only one of several companies named Apple, but it is the most important and likely to be sought by several order of magnitudes. The purpose of a hatnote is to aid with navigation, and forcing everyone that wants the obvious most likely other topic to go through a disambiguation page is ridiculous. Ladtrack (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. You'll see that the matter has been discussed repeatedly before. Policy on hatnotes and the linked disambiguation pages is basically to keep things simple, which is why the arrangement has remained as it is. Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I can see that it was discussed once above, where someone tried to add one and was told, not in so many words, "don't". Frankly, I think that any benefit towards simplicity is massively outweighed by the significant drawback of sending a lot of people to a disambiguation page when we know perfectly well where they want to go. Ladtrack (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

If you have evidence that the lack of Apple Inc. in the hatnote is a significant problem, kindly provide that. Otherwise your various assertions that the situation is "absurd" are unsupported opinions with no weight in a discussion. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to give proof, it's so obvious, but fine. Here's pageviews for the disambiguation pages for ten fruits. Do you notice any that may be an outlier, perhaps? Why do you reckon that might be? Look, this article is primary over the company, which has four times the pageviews, on the basis of long-term significance. That's perfectly well and good. The thing is, some of those people are going to end up on this page, and forcing them through a disambiguation page when we know where they want to go is stupid. Even if we're very conservative and say less than half of the extra people that went to Apple (disambiguation) want the company, we're inconveniencing, by my estimate, over 800 people a month that end up on the wrong page, and why? To make the hatnote look nice? Ladtrack (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

If your assumptions are correct, then it means that the lack of a hatnote directly to Apple Inc. is inconveniencing a little over 1% of the viewers of Apple each month by having to click twice rather than once because the average monthly views for Apple is around 72,000. Is one percent really a big deal? And I'll also note that it goes the same the other way. Apple Inc. also has a hatnote that just links to the disambiguation page. If this makes sense then it ought to be changed on both. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Is one percent really a big deal? Yes. For one thing, my estimate is probably very low; I purposely was very conservative in order to get the least generous reasonable estimate, and on top of that, a significant proportion of people will search for the company after ending up at the wrong page (about a thousand a month according to WikiNav, making the company the sixth highest outgoing page out of Apple), and some will just give up looking for the right page entirely, which is even worse. If I had to guess at a more accurate estimate, I'd say probably over 3,000. For another thing, think about this as an actual number and not a percentage. 3,000 people a month is a lot of people. Even 1,000 people is a lot of people. We're inconveniencing a lot of people, for basically purely aesthetic reasons. Why shouldn't we help them?

And I'll also note that it goes the same the other way. Apple Inc. also has a hatnote that just links to the disambiguation page. If this makes sense then it ought to be changed on both. Nobody that wants the fruit would accidentally end up at Apple Inc., since the fruit is not called "Apple, Inc.", so there's no need for a hatnote to Apple there. On the other hand, people that want the company would visit Apple because the company is widely referred to as just "Apple", so there needs to be a hatnote. Similarly, Avatar has a hatnote to Avatar (2009 film), as the more viewed topic, but there's no hatnote the other way because nobody would expect the Hindu topic at "Avatar (2009 film)". Ladtrack (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Not really, no. It's a very quick lookup process, far faster than searching in an old paper-based encyclopedia; and anyone who types "Apple" into Wikipedia's search box gets Apple Inc right there as the second option in the menu that at once appears. It's no problem, and we should stop wasting time here on this talk thread. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

You could say this about basically all hatnotes, and yet we still have them for a reason. Not all readers use the search bar. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say most don't. We know that about a thousand a month aren't, at a minimum. This is such a basic navigational aid that I'm legitimately shocked it's getting such pushback, and for what? Because the top of the article can look a little prettier? Ladtrack (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Your guesstimates are no basis for action, nor frankly is it our business. Hatnotes are required to be short. Any visitor can use either the search box, a link from Google or any other website (which will probably take them straight to where they want to go), or any link here on Wikipedia (most of which will also take them straight there), or a disambiguation page or hatnote, all of which are very quickly navigated. As I say, you're wasting your time, and everyone else's here. Please stop. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why you're so hellbent on making readers' navigational experience worse, but you are correct that I am clearly wasting my time, so fine, I'll stop. Ladtrack (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)