Talk:Tomacco

Is there a reference to grafting tobacco and tomato as a routine class project? I can't see it as a project you would as a routine class project as it would take too long. Rob Baur

I don't think this page should be merged, since tomacco is a real thing now! --[[User:JonMoore|— —Jo nMo ore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 20:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At first I assumed that part of the article was fictional, but at least some of the sources referenced appear to be legit. I'm inclined to agree that this should remain a seperate article for now, due to existance of actual plant outside the Simpsons. Friday (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair arguments. I have no real complaints. Dsm iv tr

Holy cow, they actually made tomacco? Bobak 01:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading it somewhere earlier. It's real. But they simply said it was lethal, and I thought it had no practical use whatsoever. Apparenltly it's edible. And still funny. --Falos 22:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... what?

It says "The process of making tomacco was first revealed in a 1959 Scientific American article, which stated that nicotine could be found in the tomato plant after grafting. Due to the academic and industrial importance of this breakthrough process, this article was reprinted in a 1968 textbook, Bio-Organic Chemistry, on page 170." This sentence makes no sense to me, being that the article says tomacco was invented in 2003. If someone already grafted tobacco and tomatoe together in 1959 then it could hardly have been invented in 2003. I may be missing something, but either way I think that sentence needs to be clarified. Cereal box conspiracy 16:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what it means is that the process had been revealed in 1959, but no one had actually done it until 2003. -Platypus Man | Talk 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which October? Which Textbook?

Which October is the "last October" the plant died in?

18 months after planting. Rob Baur

It's nice to have the ISBN for the textbook, but it's customary to give the author's name. And anyway, I can't verify the ISBN of the book, and it seems to fall in a range assigned to Scientific American, which doesn't make it a "textbook". Rexdwyer 19:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book is a compilation of many Scientific American article from several decades, it was used in a Bio-organic Chemistry class I took as assigned readings so, maybe it isn't a "textbook". Rob Baur

Why not just use eggplant?

if you wanna sell a vegetable to kids that has nicotine and is legal, sell eggplant. Unless you wring the hell out of those, they have quite a bit of nicotine, and taste awful (like cigarettes). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Not enough nicotine in eggplants —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ian Manning (talk • contribs) 13:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:E-I-E-I-(Annoyed Grunt).jpg

The image Image:E-I-E-I-(Annoyed Grunt).jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]