Talk:Siraitia grosvenorii: Difference between revisions

}}

 

 

==Congratulations==

 

==[[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging==

 

The article said that the fruit extract "has only 230 [[calorie|kcal]]/g compared to granulated sugar which has 387 [[calorie|kcal]]/g." Are these numbers correct? The extract seems to consist mostly of steroidal glycosides which I would expect to have much lower food energy value. Perhaps this is the combustion energy contents? --[[User:Jorge Stolfi|Jorge Stolfi]] ([[User talk:Jorge Stolfi|talk]]) 07:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

 

== Needs context==

I have removed these sentence fragments from the article because they are quite meaningless without context, explanation, or elaboration: ''Antioxidant, <ref>Matsumoto S., Jin M., Dewa Y., Nishimura J., Moto M., Murata Y., Shibutani M., Mitsumori K."Suppressive effect of Siraitia grosvenorii extract on dicyclanil-promoted hepatocellular proliferative lesions in male mice" ''Journal of Toxicological Sciences'' 2009 34:1 (109-118) </ref> Enhance immunity (in mice).<ref> Li J., Huang Y., Liao R.-Q., He X.-C., Su X.-J., Zhong Z.-X., Huang C.-P., Lu X.-W.'Effect of Siraitia Grosvenorii polysaccharide on immunity of mice' ''Chinese Pharmacological Bulletin'' 2008 24:9 (1237-1240)</ref> Glucose-lowering effect on hyperglycaemic rabbits<ref>Lin G.P., Jiang T., Hu X.B., Qiao X.H., Tuo Q.H.'Effect of Siraitia grosvenorii polysaccharide on glucose and lipid of diabetic rabbits induced by feeding high fat/high sucrose chow.' ''Experimental diabetes research'' 2007 70:5 (783-788)</ref> Inhibitory effects against the Epstein-Barr virus early antigen.<ref>Akihisa T., Hayakawa Y., Tokuda H., Banno N., Shimizu N., Suzuki T., Kimura Y. "Cucurbitane glycosides from the fruits of Siraitia grosvenorii and their inhibitory effects on Epstein-Barr virus activation" [[Journal of Natural Products]] 2007 70:5 (783-788)</ref>'' <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/148.177.1.216|148.177.1.216]] ([[User talk:148.177.1.216|talk]]) 21:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

 

== Merger proposal ==

* Support merger. [[User:Sminthopsis84|Sminthopsis84]] ([[User talk:Sminthopsis84|talk]]) 00:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 

 

 

[[:Siraitia grosvenorii]] → {{no redirect|Monk fruit}} –

* articles merged, but merged into a less common title per [[WP:ARTICLENAME]] [[User:Curb Chain|Curb Chain]] ([[User talk:Curb Chain|talk]]) 04:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

**Yeah, I think that based on the results Apteva presented there are two options - Luo han guo or ''Siraitia grosvenorii''. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 14:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

*'''Response''' That contradicts my results: "monk fruit" gets about 2,090,000 results while "Luo han guo" gets about 1,470,000 results. Per [[Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title]], [[Monk fruit]] fulfills bullets 1 and 2, and bullets 4 and 5 because it is an [[English]] name.[[User:Curb Chain|Curb Chain]] ([[User talk:Curb Chain|talk]]) 04:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

**Those are web views, I would guess. [[User:Apteva|Apteva]] ([[User talk:Apteva|talk]]) 06:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

*'''Additional discussion''' I recognize the fact that the article is about the plant, and not about the fruit, but as mentioned above, [[WP:FLORA]] does help in determining the best title for a plant's article. In this case, the fruit is making the plant notable. <s>This</s>Thus the common name of "monk fruit" is the most logical article title.[[User:Curb Chain|Curb Chain]] ([[User talk:Curb Chain|talk]]) 04:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - Using Google gives a subjective response ''per each user'', because they (Google) customize to each individual computer's history (even when you tell them not to they still seem to do it). My results, for instance, are '''''Siraitia grosvenorii''''' - 35,300; '''Luo han guo''' - 333,000; and '''Monk fruit''' - 172,000, so Luo han guo wins, I suppose. Although I don't know what their algorithms are, I can say without a doubt that the Google method is unreliable (maybe somewhat less so if you at least aggregate totals from different computers/users). [[User:Hamamelis|Hamamelis]] ([[User talk:Hamamelis|talk]]) 14:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - For me today, "Siraitia grosvenorii" gives 44,500, "monk fruit" gives 181,000 (different from yesterday's count), "Luo han guo" 329,000 (different from yesterday's count). There's also spelling variation: "Luohan guo" 14,900; "Luohanguo" 54,900; "Luo hanguo" 44,500. All in all, I'd like to stay with the scientific name. [[User:Sminthopsis84|Sminthopsis84]] ([[User talk:Sminthopsis84|talk]]) 17:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)