Talk:Populus trichocarpa

Copyright issues

Large sections of the current version of article are copied from USDA Forest Service site. As a work of the Federal Goverment of USA it should be exempt from copyright. Please correct me if I'm wrong. --Chino 08:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's correct - MPF 21:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor internal inconsistencies

Reproduction ... "The species reaches flowering age at about 10 years" ... Use as a model species ... "Reaches reproductive maturity 4-6 years" – need to check which is correct! - MPF 21:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot provide a reference, but I believe the difference arises from the fact that when used in science the tree is most most often grown in a greenhouse. --Chino 11:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actual accepted name

It seems that P. trichocarpa is not the accepted name for this tree. The actual accepted name is P. balsamifera subsp. trichocarpa.. Shouldn't this apperar somewhere in the page? Diriano 16:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Age, size, and record

Why is it written that black cottonwood is fairly short-lived? For a poplar, it is very long lived. As a genus, poplars are shorter lived than many other deciduous trees, but black cottonwood is an exception. And what is this 'record' about from AK? It is a record of what? Certainly not height, and if age, it is not given. Note that the height range says to 50m. Here http://www.arthurleej.com/a-talltales.html is a claim of a standing black cottonwood over 200' tall. 168.103.45.30 (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

@CASmitty and Zefr: how about you both discuss this dispute on this talk page intended for that very purpose instead of through edit summaries? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Probably because it was as unnecessary to create a new talk topic as it was for him to edit out my edit in the first place. Users are required to explain their edits anyways, so as long as they kept incorrectly editing my edit, I had to keep re-editing and had another opportunity to explain my position. This is obviously my first edit ever, whereas they have 60,000+ edits. Last we heard from them they said my second reference didn’t pertain to the article, which I already acknowledged, and that I should continue through the talk section. They’ve done everything they can do except address the fact that they were wrong to edit my edit beyond telling me I had to add a citation after my first edit. They have 60,000 edits. They probably have access to the full description or if they don’t could contact somebody who does, or could probably figure how to gain access to the full description. Instead of being a pissant, he could correct the false claim with my true claim and we’d be done. Again, 60,000 edits. CASmitty (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It's an old truism that two wrongs don't make a right. Just to be clear, the "second reference" you refer to is this link, and your main source is this one, seemingly accessed through this website, which is helpfully sortable? Zefr, could you please explain why you feel the latter is "not useful" or an unreliable source? As a reminder, none of the disagreeing sources ([1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]) should be considered "reliable" (I'm incidentally also interested in your interpretation of WP:BITE). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Let's focus on the version existing now under Description:

1) the first sentence could adequately be stated only as "It is a large tree, growing to a height of 30 to 50 metres (98 to 164 ft) and a trunk diameter over 2 m (6+1⁄2 ft)." [note: these dimensions are incorrect according to the data in this source which says the circumference is 26 ft 8 in = 320 in. To obtain diameter 320 / 3.14 (pi) = 102 in = 8.5 feet (2.6 m).]

2) the subjective component is limited both by only recorded observations (no certainty for accuracy among all possible large trees) and an awkward PDF source that requires the reader to scan a long list (not ideal for the common user). Further, if the registry is searched for "Populus trichocarpa", it yields a "server error 403 - forbidden". I suggest this source is not useful.

3) summary: why is it important to state "makes it the third largest poplar species in the Americas", which is not a description, but rather a subjective minor unnecessary point with a clumsy reference?

4) I was not biting CASmitty but rather challenging the use of a registry list as a source for a minor point and a New Zealand source (used for an American-Canadian context) that made the statement doubtful.

Finally, let's keep it simple by stating just the tree dimensions. The sign shown in the Waymarking source for the Willamette Mission State Park in Marion County, Oregon is acceptable. Zefr (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I concur with point 3. That seems to be too esoteric a point to include as part of a description for a layman reader, especially in the lede. Crescent77 (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)