Talk:soybean sprout

soybean sprout
Defined as 'sprout of a soy bean'. Needs cleanup if kept; inexperienced creator (good effort though). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the criticism. I shall be content with whatever solution it takes to find translation for a supermarket item like taugé (bean sprouts): --IM Serious (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as a translation target, because there are idiomatic translations.Matthias Buchmeier (talk)


 * I don't know about soybean sprout, but the red link bean sprout would almost certainly be keepable under WT:COALMINE since one-word beansprout is also common. I've certainly heard the food most commonly referred to as "bean sprouts", though that's more general as bean sprouts are often from mungo beans and not soybeans. —Angr 13:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Owing to your help I am remembering that bean sprout without the soy would indeed be the correct lemma for native English and have moved the definition thereupon. I have no more objections to fulfilling the RfD on the redirect now: --IM Serious (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC) PS: I am no biologist and am up to now ignorant to the differences between mungo and soy, all bean sprouts I've eaten in various countries always looked and tasted the same.


 * Has been moved to bean sprout but needs work. The translation glosses do not correspond with the definitions. Shouldn't it be mung bean: rather than soy bean:. Shouldn't it be plural only. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Often yes, but not at all cases. I guess the definition for bean sprout should read somewhat like "(most often used for) sprout of a soy bean or a mung bean" and the term "bean sprouts" should also appear prominently with the illustration, a separate definition and translation list.  I sincerely apologize for still being so incompetent and overly impulsive with my first steps: --IM Serious (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not plural only: "a bean sprout" can be found in Google Books. Keep bean sprout; I don't know about the nominated soybean sprout, which I've never seen or heard before. Not sure about sense 2, either: "a quantity of sprouts"; really? Can a "bean sprout" be more than one? Equinox ◑ 15:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My original soybean sprout can be speedied, I just don't know the name of the template to put on the redirect. I'll try to fix as much as I can: --IM Serious (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank all you quick little helpers, I am impressed! Am I allowed to remove the rfd tag from bean sprout now? --IM Serious (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the positive attitude in getting this right :), but the wording seems awkward to me and I think some information is missing. It currently reads: "A sprout of most often a soy bean or mung bean." This definition does tell us why "bean sprout" is not SOP (it's most often soy or mung), but it doesn't limit the definition to just beans. Can a bean sprout also be a rose sprout or a marigold sprout? Also, when I hear "bean sprouts," I usually think of food though it seems possible that some bean sprouts are not consumed by humans (or animals). To the extent that "bean sprout" is not SOP, should that fact also be mentioned? One other niggling item: "soy bean" (with a space) is an alternative spelling of soybean and requires the user to make an extra click. Is there a reason for not linking to the main entry? --BB12 (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Matthias Buchmeier, major sigh. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do we now have two translation tables, but only one definition?
 * @BB: The inclusion rationale is WT:COALMINE, which means that the definition is likely to be actually be SoP. I doubt that most folks, even users of this dictionary, buying bean sprouts at a store or using them in a salad have any knowledge of the origin beyond what is conveyed by the component words, so the wording beyond that is limited to the context of the food manufacturing and food service industries, including regulators. Should we have such a "technical" definition? There is, after all, no reason to economize of the number of definitions being offered, especially when they all can appear on a single screen. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The core meaning of bean sprouts in English is the sprouted seeds of the mung bean, Vigna radiata (aka Vigna aureus), which are used as a vegetable. Other beans, such as soybeans are also sprouted for use as a vegetable, but are almost always qualified, as in "soybean sprouts". I have purchased soybean sprouts from an Asian market here in the Los Angeles area that were labeled as "soybean sprouts", and there were also mung bean sprouts for sale in the same store- which were labeled simply as "bean sprouts" (they also had pea sprouts- which are delicious- but that's another story). Most people who refer to bean sprouts are unaware of any kind other than the mung-bean type, and would ask what was going on if they were given soybean sprouts when they asked for bean sprouts. The only time I've seen "bean sprouts" used without qualification for anything other than mung beans is when discussing the various types of sprouted beans that exist.
 * As for the translation tables, soybean sprouts are known in some Asian languages by different names than mung bean sprouts, so the translation table from that entry can't be simply merged with the one for bean sprouts, unless something like is added to the translations. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My issue is with the very idea that the core meaning of an everyday term can have anything to do with taxonomy, not even with vernacular names of specific varieties of beans. If we were an honestly descriptive dictionary we would just have and photos of packaged and unpackaged bean sprouts for our general definition and  for any definition beyond that. DCDuring TALK  18:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Taxonomy is merely a way of being precise about the identity of something. I would say that what speakers understand when they hear the term "bean sprouts" is far more specific than just the combination of "bean" with "sprouts". They may not know that the kind of sprouts they're familiar with are only produced by sprouting mung beans, or that they belong to the species Vigna radiata, but they would recognize the difference between their idea of bean sprouts and sprouted soybeans, or sprouted kidney beans, etc. With plant and animal names, it's very common to have a single species that is understood when ones uses the name without qualification, but multiple other senses that are mostly used with a qualifying adjective. For instance, the core meaning of cat is the domestic cat, though it can be used for felids in general, and combined to produce wildcat or big cats, etc. I'm not sure if there's a better term than "core meaning" for this, but the phenomenon clearly exists. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that it isn't useful to know what species of beans may sprout what is sold, only that there is a clash between being "descriptive" and the kind of definition that we often advance as the definition of a term. Someone who was trying to describe what he means by bean sprouts without the benefit of a sample or picture might get into a visual description, but not resort to a definiens which was less likely to be known than the definiend. A writer who assumed that his readers knew that mung beans were what was meant when bean sprouts were mentioned would probably be considered arrogant or as speaking over the heads of his readership, unless his book was aimed at food professionals or very serious cooks (eg. ). Most professional chefs don't have to know the species either, but may be interested enough to learn. I have the same problem with a definition of iron that defines it without a usage tag as "The element of atomic number 16 ." rather than as something like "One of the commonest metals, used in many manufactured objects which require strength and hardness at a low cost ." Engineers of various ilks may need and use different definitions, chemists and physicists other ones. Which ones can be combined is a practical matter.  DCDuring TALK  20:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Re "iron": those are parts of the same definition. If I show an iron bar to a chemist and she says "ah, that's iron, the element with atomic number 26", and then I show the iron bar to a grocer, and he says "ah, that's iron; there's a lot of iron in red meat, you know", they're referring to the same thing, they're not even using different senses of the word the way a sister saying "he's my brother" and a monk saying that are, because the iron found in red meat still has the atomic number 26, and that element which has atomic number 26 is found in red meat. Also, "one of the commonest metals, used in many manufactured objects which require strength and hardness at a low cost" seems to stray close to encyclopedic territory. - -sche (discuss) 21:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It don't think identifying the true underlying referent is the job or a truly descriptive dictionary. It is to identify how ordinary people use the term, especially outside a classroom. This is useful, for example, for those who write for those people. Macmillan and MWOnline have definitions like mine:
 * MWOnline: "a silver-white malleable ductile magnetic heavy metallic element that readily rusts in moist air, occurs native in meteorites and combined in most igneous rocks, is the most used of metals, and is vital to biological processes a silver-white malleable ductile magnetic heavy metallic element that readily rusts in moist air, occurs native in meteorites and combined in most igneous rocks, is the most used of metals, and is vital to biological processes - See element table."
 * Macmillan: "a hard heavy metal that is a common element. It is used for making steel and is also used in many types of machine and building structures.
 * "a. small quantities of iron, existing in some foods and in your body, which is important for good health."
 * Are they encyclopedic or are they focusing on everyday experience of ordinary humans?
 * Our approach is more like AHD's, not my favorite model, MW 1913, Century, Collins.
 * AHD: "Symbol Fe A silvery-white, lustrous, malleable, ductile, magnetic or magnetizable, metallic element occurring abundantly in combined forms, notably in hematite, limonite, magnetite, and taconite, and used alloyed in a wide range of important structural materials. Atomic number 26; atomic weight 55.845; melting point 1,535°C; boiling point 2,750°C; specific gravity 7.874 (at 20°C); valence 2, 3, 4, 6. See Table at element."
 * Some others are in between using the atomic number, but also having the everyday experience elements. DCDuring TALK 00:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As a dictionary with an attached encyclopedia, I prefer to give a concise exact definition and point them to Wikipedia where it can give them example after example.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP typically doesn't really cover multiple levels of understanding either. The level they address could most accurately be characterized as unpredictable. Delegating the problem of addressing multiple levels of user is irresponsible, in any event.
 * Hardly any dictionaries give concise definitions of iron, if you mean one-line glosses. I would suggest that we need to give at least two definitions, as concise as possible, distinguished by the "context" in the sense of the audience expected to understand them: one for laymen, one for physicists and chemists, with possibly more fore metallurgists, manufacturers, merchants and buyers. DCDuring TALK 13:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)