Talk:Wollemia

Move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was to move to Wollemi Pine. --liquidGhoul 04:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wollemia → Wollemi Pine - despite being taxonomically incorrect the most common name in use in Austraila where the species exists -in both literature and horticultural practice - is the Wollemi Pine. The ariticle is now named for the genus - not even the appropriate species (Wollemia nobilis). Move per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --Peta 04:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There are three possible entry titles for this species.
    • The common name Wollemi Pine
    • The genus Wollemia-note that it is monospecific genus
    • the specific name Wollemia nobilis

All are correct and useful. Though obviously Wollemi Pine would be the most searched for term and thus most 'useful'. Lentisco 04:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• If I may correct you the most common name is Wollemi Pine just google it. Also in my experience an article on a monospecific genus normally ends up at the species name.--Peta 05:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• It is long-established convention that monospecific genera are redirects to the species article, rather than the other way around. I strongly support a move. I'd prefer Wollemia nobilis, but not strongly. Snottygobble 05:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• As a layperson, I would be more likely to look for Wollemi pine. Capitalistroadster 05:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I found examples of common names (River Red Gum, Karri, Jarrah) and species (Banksia ericifolia etc). When I switched to thinking, I noticed that Category:Flora of Australia is a good misxture of common and taxonomic names, but this article is not in it. Category:Banksia has two subcategories, and species are categoriesd by both common name (using redirects) and scientific name (the articles themselves) - well done Drew! Whatever choice is made, perhaps it should be widened to rename all species in cat:Flora of Aus to swing the same way. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Scott, but don't adopt my method until we're sure I'm not going to be arrested by the Wikipolice. I imagine putting redirects in categories might be frowned upon by some, but so far its been a highly successful solution to an annoying problem. Snottygobble 10:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems like an elegant and professional-looking solution to a problem that both names are "common" to different audiences. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Article_titles_and_common_names, in my experience working on species-stuff between here and the Commons, stuff here is always at the common name with the scientific species name as a RDR. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That reference seems to slightly prefer Wollemi pine in this case, and Wollemia otherwise, contrary to Drew's comment above. I still don't have a personal preference. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. In that case, I think the article should stay where it is. Snottygobble 00:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Very strong object to above move

Proposed move back to Wollemia:

• It is not a pine Pinus. The naming conventions have always recognised that confusing names should be avoided in titles.
• All the other taxa in Category:Araucariaceae are listed at the scientific name.
• Monotypic genera are listed at the genus, not at the species, for ease of searching.

MPF 00:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• All montypic genera are listed at the species name in my experience. Whether the name reflects the correct taxonomy is irrelevant, it is the most common name, and there are no competing common names for the species.--Peta 00:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No, at the genus name has been the standard convention - it was discussed a while ago and agreed, it's in the WP:TOL talk archives somewhere. "Whether the name reflects the correct taxonomy is irrelevant" - it is relevant; the current page title implies it is a Pinus species. - MPF 00:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I know you have issues with illogical common names, but the fact is the species is called Wollemi Pine in Australia in the media and is marketed under that name.--Peta 00:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
      • From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names): "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". This page is in clear conflict with the standard accepted definition of pine. Also see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Don't overdo it: "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative". Clearly the scientific name is the obvious choice here. - MPF 00:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• This doesn't conflict with any other name, that rule is true if there is another plant which is called Wollemi Pine, which there obviously isn't. Also, the page you cite gives an excellent example of why this should be called Wollemi Pine. Guinea Pig is used, even though they aren't truely pigs. That is because it is such a common name that it would be silly not to use it, and the same applies here. --liquidGhoul 00:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, MPF's rationale is compelling. I agree it should be moved back. Snottygobble 03:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The title does not imply the tree is a Pinus, even if someone thought it was as soon as they see the taxobox they will see it is not. It's like some frogs, some species which are not in the True toad family are refered to as toads, even though they aren't in that family. Also with most monotypic genera articles are titled by the species, see Tusked Frog, Pouched Frog and Haswell's Froglet all of which are in monotypic genera.--Tnarg¹²³⁴⁵ 08:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Australians call many local things "pine" which have nothing at all to do with Pinus. Things like Hoop Pine (it's never "Moreton Bay Pine"), Bunya Pine (never "Bunya Bunya"), Norfolk Island Pine (widely planted and well known by that name), Cypress Pine (glaucophylla is a marketed timber, known as "cypress pine" by every carpenter in the country), Brown Pine (Podocarpus elatus) (a popular native garden tree), Kauri Pine (another), Huon Pine (a Tasmanian tree of some renown) and, of course Wollemi Pine. Maybe we shouldn't, but that's how it is. Species ought to always be listed by unique and well-established common names when they exist (see eg every single bird here) - however foolish some may find them. To do otherwise smacks of scientific snobbery in a publication intended for the general reader. --Glen Fergus 13:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, we're not calling a strawberry something else because its not technically a berry.--Peta 03:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support move to Wollemia. I don't think Wikipedia should be perpetuating names that are potentially confusing. While Australians may be familiar with these common names, Wikipedia is intended to inform international readers, also. These readers may be unfamiliar with the practice that Glen Fergus describes. This penchant is not limited to Australian species, by the way. Another species in the Araucariaceae family, naturalized in Hawaii, is Araucaria heterophylla, commonly known as Norfolk Island Pine. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That is the tree that I referred to, so your argument is perhaps that the well-known common name is in international use? BTW, most would say that Norfolk Island is part of Australia, though a few Bounty-descended locals might not agree. I suggest we now start a move to shift Isle of Pines, New Caledonia (L'Île-des-Pins) to L'Île-des-Araucaria, since no Pinus grow there at all.--Glen Fergus 00:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, Glen Fergus. I didn't read your comment as carefully as I should have. I may be overly sensitive to this particular issue. West of the Cascade Range, where I live, people often call evergreen trees "pine". While pine trees are not unknown, especially near the Pacific Ocean shore, common evergreen trees in my region are much more likely to be Douglas-fir or Western Hemlock. I hate to see WP promulgate such sloppiness. However, I must agree with your point that my example does demonstrate that Norfolk Island Pine is in international use. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support move to Wollemia. Both the common name and the specific name W. nobilis should point back to Wollemia. However what is the connection of Wikipedia entry to Wikispecies entry. Perhaps the page should merge? Lentisco 03:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support move to Wollemia but then again I believe that all "common names" of plants should redirect to the botanical name. MrDarwin 03:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep in Wollemi pine. The whole pine = pinus argument is futile. The Oxford English dictionary recognises (as definition 4a) the use of 'pine' to refer to a whole range of non-pinus conifers, going back to 1788. The quibbling detracts form the articles to no purpose. Steev 07:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment :::It's a bit late, this discussion took place last year. However it is the convention of plants articles on Wikipedia for the names to be the scientific names--this plant falls under the Wikipedia naming conventions for plants and should be under "Wollemia," the genus name, not under "Wollemi Pine," the common name. For what's it is worth I agree with you that the common name "pine" is used as a common name for various species of conifers outside of the pine family. As such, "Wollemi Pine" is a correct name for a conifer. However, WP:Plants has opted to go for scientific names to avoid these difficulties which are more prevalent with plant names than with animal names. KP Botany 23:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

---

This discussion has been stalled for ages, and I don't see consensus. Meanwhile, WP:PLANTS has thrashed out naming conventions for flora, which, if applied in this case, would see the article returned to its original title.

In 24 hours, if there are no cogent objections, I will move the article back to Wollemia, not because there is consensus for that title, but because there is no consensus. The original title, which is supported by guidelines, should be the status quo, and we should be testing for consensus to ignore the guidelines and overturn the original title, rather than the other way around.

Snottygobble 01:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I am happy with the move now that WP:PLANTS has changed their policy, but I don't like your idea of concensus. At the time of moving, there was a clear consensus for a move. You even supported a move until your last comment, but nobody followed your lead, and there was only one object (and according to your statements, it sounded like you didn't really care). Therefore, the move back should only be based on another clear concensus, and not a rushed one at that. Leave it a week, and allow people to comment. Now that there is policy favouring the move, it should be easy to get through. --liquidGhoul 02:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It was a very long 24 hours, wasn't it? There were no objections, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) remains stable and uncontentious. I have now moved this page in conformance to it. Hesperian 23:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Photos Uploaded to the Commons

I have just uploaded the following photos of Wollemia nobilis to the commons. Hopefully they will be of use for this article. It seems a bit vain to saturate an article with one's own photo's, so someone else might want to choose which (if any) images should be used. John Dalton 04:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you knew what could result with my formatting skills from saturating an article with your images, you would strike forth with vanity. I will look through the article and the images to see what can be added where, and hopefully MPF or Mr. Darwin will come by and put them in their proper places, or you can based upon my comments. I just got my Wollemia last week. KP Botany 16:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Trademarked name?

I've seen some discussion on other websites that the name "Wollemi pine" is a trademarked name. Can anybody confirm this--if so, this information should probably be included. MrDarwin 17:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: the word "Wollemi" is trademarked, at least in the USA. Don't know when the trademark was registered (or in how many countries) but it seems to be a marketing ploy to control importation and distribution of living plants. The oldest published reference I can find that uses the name "Wollemi pine" is Macphail et al. 1995, Geology Today 11: 48-49. (Note that this is the same year the species name was published, and only one year after its discovery.) The name "Wollemi pine" is used frequently in the botanical and horticultural literature from 1996 onwards. MrDarwin 18:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect there would be quite a few (justified) objections from Australian Aborigines if an attempt was made in Australia to trademark elements of one of their languages. Wollemi is Aboriginal for "watch out, look around you"[1]. Given that "Wollemi" is an adjective, descriptive of the source of the tree, I think that any trademark would also be open to challenge on the basis that the trademark does not provide an exclusive identity. I wonder if Ford is going to claim a trademark on "Japanese" in relation to cars? This source indicates that the foundations of the trademark are weak. Given that I live outside of the US I plan on ignoring such bogus trademark claims. John Dalton (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Genetics: indistinguishable vs. identical?

I'd like to change genetically "indistinguishable" to genetically "identical" on the grounds that it's a positive description instead of negative and thus easier to read. Is there anyone who asserts that the two terms have a different meaning in looking at an individual's genetic signature? Thanks. --Monado (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

unsigned comment

"Noble soon found that they were new to science" - only because others informed himm so.

Wentworth Falls waterfall and village are no-where near Wollemi National Park, which is two major roads and two major valleys away. NPWS (or whatever they call themselves this week) do not have any offices or otherwise in Wentworth Falls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.95.41 (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

topic - species or something else

Currently, the majority of this article is about the Wollemi Pine (Wollemia nobilis). Only one subsection is about Wollemia in general. I propose that the article title be updated to reflect this reality (and Wollemia redirected to that subsection).

I also note, reflecting on considerable previous dispute whether this article should be titled Wollemia or Wollemi Pine, that it is conceded (and stated in the lead) that "Wollemi Pine" is the unique name which this species is universally known by. This species is popular and well known (unlike other members of wollemia which, being long extinct, appear destined never to achieve any wider notability other than their status as relatives to someone famous) and hence this species is deserving of its own independent article (with only a subsection on its family). The arguments opposed have hinged solely on whether particular editors like its name, or consider it logical, or wish to encourage different use of the word "pine" by the general population; such prescriptivism amounts to advocacy and is contrary to policy here. In the years since this was last debated, the common name has only become more widely entrenched, and thus the conclusions of the article naming policy seem unescapable. Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Replacing Reference NPWS

The reference labelled NPWS in revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wollemia&oldid=870781092 and before is to an internet archive of the front page of the NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service, which has no mention of Wollemia. I propose removing it and replacing it with references to the *Wollemia nobilis (Wollemi Pine) Recovery Plan*, at https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/research-and-publications/publications-search/wollemia-nobilis-wollemi-pine-recovery-plan . Any objections? Newystats (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

saved from fire threat: real news or government propaganda? Effect of fire retardant?

The New South Wales government controls access to the site and the flow of information. Currently the media is claiming the site was saved from fire. There is a notable lack of specific information in the reports, with most stories framing the situation as a threatened species being saved from extinction when in fact it has been cloned and propagated. The area was sprayed in fire retardant and yet the media fails to question the effects of these chemicals on the environment including on the Wollemi. What were the chemicals used? How close did the fires get? Were the fires even likely to have killed the Wollemi at the site? 58.165.112.140 (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

What secondary sources do you propose adding to the article that will improve the article? This page ios for article improvement and not for conspiracy theory incubation.--Kevmin § 00:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

A double negative phrase.

Although often described as a "living fossil", there are no unambiguous fossils of Wollemia and potential fossil records of it have been considered uncertain.

The phrase "no unambiguous" means "ambiguous" in this sense? 182.253.54.120 (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)