Talk:Pinus maximartinezii

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) 01:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Big-cone pinyon → Pinus maximartinezii
• Bosnian pine → Pinus heldreichii
• Chinese red pine → Pinus tabuliformis
• Cuban pine → Pinus cubensis
• Durango pine → Pinus durangensis
• Hispaniolan pine → Pinus occidentalis
• Huangshan pine → Pinus hwangshanensis
• Japanese red pine → Pinus densiflora
• Japanese white pine → Pinus parviflora
• Khasi pine → Pinus kesiya
• Krempf's pine → Pinus krempfii
• Maritime pine → Pinus pinaster
• Mexican pinyon → Pinus cembroides
• Mexican white pine → Pinus ayacahuite
• Qiaojia pine → Pinus squamata
• Siberian pine → Pinus sibirica
• Sumatran pine → Pinus merkusii
• Swiss pine → Pinus cembra
• Tenasserim pine → Pinus latteri
• Tropical pine → Pinus tropicalis
• Turkish pine → Pinus brutia
• Vietnamese white pine → Pinus dalatensis

– Move to scientific names per WP:FLORA and WP:UCN. None of these pine species naturally occur in an English speaking country. The most commonly used name in English language reliable sources for these species is the scientific name. The current title of these articles is a "vernacular name", but not a "common name" in the sense required by article title policy (WP:AT). Plantdrew (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The titles 14 of the 22 nominations "fail" a basic WP:GOOGLETEST versus the scientific name. 5 of the 8 terms "passing" a Googletest have a large number of results for subjects besides a single pine species (e.g. Tropical pine gives many results as a descriptive term for pines growing the tropics, but few for Pinus tropicalis). All of the nominated scientific name titles, aside from "Pinus tropicalis" pass a Google Books and/or Google Scholar test. Plantdrew (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support move for all of them, as supported by WP:FLORA, WP:UCN, consistency within the genus Pinus and common practice for plant articles. First Light (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support all as per nom. and previous comments. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose all. I fail to see how WP:FLORA beats WP:UE. How Pinus ayacahuite is somehow a more English-language title than Mexican white pine is beyond me. Red Slash 05:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - WP:UE reigns supreme here, and so does WP:FLORA. The two are not at odds. WP:UE says "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." Reliable English-language sources use Latin-derived names to refer to these plants using an unambiguous system that has been established by generations of botanists and horticulturists, and no competing system of naming has arisen that has anywhere near the usefulness of that two-word naming system for any of these particular case. Wikipedia should not be in the business of establishing a competing system of naming. A particularly egregious example mentioned above is "Tropical pine" for Pinus tropicalis when that phrase is used freely by many people for many species, particularly for Araucaria, but also for some Pinus species. (Mexican white pine is just one of the common names for Pinus ayacahuite; English speakers in the area where it grows have borrowed the Spanish, and call it ayacahuite pine.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Sminthopsis, thanks for that clear explanation. It's worth remembering for these all too common discussions. Red Slash, "Mexican white pine" is such a common and popular name that it's also used for Pinus strobiformis.[1][2] Wikipedia:Article titles is quite clear that article titles need to be precise, applying to only one subject. The problem with "vernacular" names, which people conflate with "common" names, is that different localities will have their own vernacular names. As the first reference link shows, Pinus strobiformis has vernacular names that include your "Mexican white pine" but also "Limber pine", which is also a vernacular name for Pinus flexilis. That's another reason why English language sources prefer the scientific names in most cases, and why we use them in our encyclopedia. First Light (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support All articles listed under their scientific names should be the standard. The articles will still have redirects and still list the common names in the opening sentence. --Jamo58 (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Just noticed I made a couple mistakes in the move request. I intended to only nominate pines that didn't occur in any English speaking countries (and were thus unlikely to have genuinely "commonly used" English vernacular names). Mexican pinyon's range barely extends into the US, occurring at the tops of a couple mountain ranges in southern Texas. Do note that there are multiple vernacular/common names for this species. Maritime pine is naturalized in several English speaking countries, and is apparently a significant invasive in South Africa (where the most commonly used vernacular name seems to be "cluster pine"). The scientific name for both of these gets more Google/Books/Scholar results than the article title at a vernacular name. As they don't precisely fit my move rationale, I'd be happy to strike these out if it will keep the move discussion simpler. I'm leaving them in for now as now as details of geographic occurrence are not the bone of contention in arguments opposed to the move. Plantdrew (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd appreciate that. I don't dispute that some of these species may indeed be more commonly referred to by their Latin name. But this is such a broad-stroke move; if you as an expert could point out a few (or even several) that are clearly more commonly called by their Latinate name in English, that would be excellent. I mean, you don't have to and I'm not your boss, obviously but I feel like this request is stating now that the proposer and supporters believe that every single one of these tree species is more commonly referred to by the Latinate name. I don't know how they are so convinced when there's been no evidence shown of that. Red Slash 23:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I have results of thorough Google Tests for 9 of them here User:Plantdrew/pinegoogletest. Google tests certainly have some problems, so if you've got a better idea let me know. Some of the vernacular names do have more results than the scientific names, but the scientific names aren't far behind. These are general Google results; Scholar and Book results (which better represent Reliable Sources) are far more skewed to scientific names. Most of these pine species are very obscure and of interest only to specialists (who are likely to use the scientific name), or of interest local populations in the region where they grow (where English common names are unlikely to be used). I think it's safe to say that most web results include at least one (there can be several) vernacular name along with the scientific name when any of these trees are discussed. A handful use only a vernacular name, or only a scientific name. Plantdrew (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment - Red, I do mean this with the utmost respect, but honestly the Google tests are irrelevant here. They only decide which is more common, and that's only relevant in non-plant articles. The policy and referenced guideline are clear. :) --Tom Hulse (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Red and WP:USEENGLISH. I accept the fact that in some cases, where there is ambiguity, the Latin name may be required. But in all others the common English name must be used! Vegaswikian (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I see only two objections above. First, Red failed to see how WP:FLORA beats WP:UE. I would have him read higher up on that page, where it specifically mentions & endorses WP:FLORA, it's part of the policy.

Second, Vegaswikian cited WP:USEENGLISH, which is a guideline. Not only does it mention exceptions, but all guidelines are always trumped by policy, such as as WP:MOSAT, which is a policy that explains how plants follow a different naming convention. --Tom Hulse (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Plantdrew's rationale is pretty solid. Hesperian 02:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support all per nominator. Conformity with other plant articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:FLORA--Melburnian (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:FLORA and the specific rationale given by the nominator. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Lack of References

There are very few references in this article. The only two which are given are used only to reference the alternative names of the plant. The data needs to be checked, references need to be added and incorrect data, if any, needs to be removed. Saanidhya B (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)