Talk:Softwood

message: I removed the following, as the only google hits for any of these words were mirrors of this page, typos, or completely unrelated.
Please re-add if you can cite a reliable source per WP:V.
:: Softwood is also known as Clarkwood, Madmanwood, or fuchwood.
Speight (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  alternate names 

message: A new contributor added this question to the article.  I dropped it here instead.
 / Raven in Orbit (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question added to article 

message: Determining whether the wood is soft or hard is not as simple as seeing whether the trees has cones or not.  Pinus elliotti and Pinus taeda have quite hard wood.
*http://www.nearctica.com/trees/conifer/pinus/Pelliot.htm
*http://www.britannica.com/EBChecked/topic/548102/slash-pine
*http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Slash+pine
*http://www2.fpl.fs.fed.us/TechSheets/SoftwoodNA/pdf_files/pinustaedaeng.pdf
For instance, loblolly pine and longleaf pine are denser than some ashes, American elm, Slippery Elm, Black Tupelo, American Sycamore, Black Walnut, and Black Willow.  Longleaf pine also has greater impact resistance than many broadleaf, non-coniferous trees.
*http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/chemdata/woods.htm
"Softwood" might be an industry defintion, but if so, it must be noted as such.  Also, it should also be noted that the industry definition is not a good indicator of a wood's hardness.  Ufwuct (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What is softwood?

message: Controversy?  Must the words "controversy" or "controversial" appear on EVERY wikipedia page?  Indeed, there are some subjects that should include controversy, but in some cases identifying a controversy runs against the goal of an encyclopedia to be neutral.
Daft Creftsman (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Kept United States – Canada softwood lumber dispute, dialed down the drama a bit, changing "Controversies" section to a "See also." Is OK? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That does help.  It makes it seem a bit more straightforward, and "facts-oriented".  Those things for which controversy is part and parcel (such as, say, forestry), such a section may make sense-- but for smaller elements of an overarching subject (at least in my opinion) controversy is not really worth mentioning. Daft Creftsman (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: This article doesn't justify its separate existence from Wood. It is unsourced and contains no significant new information. I therefore propose that it is converted to a redirect to Wood. Plantsurfer 10:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree, have added references and notes to expand the article but these is a significant difference to wood but it clearly needs more work added to it DavidAnstiss (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose merge into Wood

message: The redirect Deal+(wood) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Deal+(wood)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]