Talk:Pinus taeda

message: Removed "Loblolly is the primary tree of the New Jersey Pine Barrens": The NJ Pine Barrens are of Pitch Pine (P. rigida) and Scrub Pine (P. virginiana) - MPF 10:50, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: issues

message: This page, like many other American species pages existed solely in Metric for a long time. I added units with which Americans are familiar. MPF rearranged these to make the Metric have precedence. While Metric measurement is clearly superior, and probably will be adapted some day by the U.S., it is currently strange to the lay people who will use this work as a reference. If I were to start reworking pages of European species with units unfamiliar to the lay people, it would be regarded as discourteous. Please consider this and apply the Golden Rule.  Pollinator July 3, 2005 13:15 (UTC)
:I disagree. It is a science topic, and as in any science topic, scientific measurements should come first. I also would point out that the Flora of North America (probably the best and most detailed American source of information on American plants) does not consider US units to be necessary at all. Finally, the formatting used for the US measures was not at all clear, and in some cases completely wrong (a mm is not a cm!) - MPF 3 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)
:My $.02 is that the customary system measurements are useful. While this may be a science article first and foremost, I think that research and coverage of flora, especially trees, often transcends pure science. Maybe I'm just a sentimental tree hugger... but I can think of several generally scientific tree guides that occasionally lapse into non-scientific superlatives like "magnificent" on occasion. Not that I advocate going that far, but I do advocate adding measurements that help lay readers better understand the measurements of trees in their area. That would mean including customary system measurements for American trees. --67.100.137.40 23:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metric 

message: "The name loblolly means a low wet place, but these trees are not limited to that specific habitat. " I removed this, since reearch indicate otherwise.  If anyone has a source, please replace it, and quote the source, of course! Rich   Farmbrough 00:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It agrees with what I've read in several tree books; I'll dig a ref out tomorrow - MPF 02:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The Arbor Day website agrees the same definition - MPF 11:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: IIRC, "loblolly" originally was a name for some kind of murky drink or gruel. Mudholes then came to be called by the term. Finally, it was applied to the pines seen at such mudholes in the South.--67.101.67.177 00:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Is it just me, or is the choice to use a field of busted trees possibly not the best choice?  I live in the frozen north, so I can't go out and take a pic of a loblolly pine to replace it with...  Tomertalk 22:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  taxobox image 

message: The lollipop mnemonic has been removed three times now, by three different editors. Every time Nuberger13 has reverted the removal, with the explanation that it helps people. Wikipedia is not here to help how to do things, but to inform. Please elaborate why WP:NOTHOWTO does not apply here, and how this piece of information can be WP:verified, before reinserting it again. Rror (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't see the forest for the trees (no pun intended) - you're missing the big picture here. You're getting so caught up in adhering to the "letter of the law" with Wikipedia policy, that you're hurting things instead of helping. This is why the WP:Ignore All Rules antipolicy was invented - for when adhering to policy would prevent an editor from improving an article. We're supposed to be sharing the sum of humanity's knowledge with all the world here - creating something which the average everyday man-on-the-street person can refer to and benefit from in a practical way. And while the lollipop mnemonic might not be all stuffshirt pocket-protector encyclopedic, it's something which the average person would benefit from. And yet despite that, you're fighting to remove it, just so you can pat yourself on the back about what a good little policy-nazi you are (pardon the honesty). Nuberger13 (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First, congratulations for adhering to Godwin's law, and extra credit for saying that to someone from Austria (see my user page). I already told you the following on your talk page, but you decided to ignore that so here we go again: I do not study all guidelines and enforce them blindly - somethings seems out of place and I correct it, if there is a guideline backing me up all the better. I guess your sole argument, after ignoring everybody else's is "average person would benefit practically". Ok, then why not how to cook pine nuts, how to refinish pine flooring, how to remove pine sap from you hands? All that is helpful and part of human knowledge, but not suitable for an encyclopedia. There are other wikis for practical information. Rror (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (A) In all that, you failed to deal with my central point, which is that you are removing something while citing "policy" as your justification, which hurts the article as a result. (B) The statement in question is about loblolly pine trees - which is what the article is about. So it works. So your argument about pine nuts and pine flooring and pine sap and the Pine-Sol lady's dreadlocks falls flat on its face. (C) One could argue that giving the tree's Latin name ("pinus taeda") is just as much a bit of inconsequential trivia as the lobLOLLY->LOLLIpop mnemonic. Sure you could say that "well, that's encyclopedia tradition, and we do it in all the botanical articles, and blah blah blah", but I would point out that the average person is going to get a lot more out of the mnemonic than out of the Latin name...and the whole point of Wikipedia is to help the average person. So if you're so stuck on policy and tradition, as opposed to being practical and pragmatic, that you'd fight to keep something less useful and remove something more useful...when you could just leave BOTH in the article and say "you know what, this will help people", and walk away...then I think you ought to ask yourself what you're doing here, and whether you're really helping anyone. Nuberger13 (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then, since your own definition of helpful is your sole principle and you are ignoring opinions of other editors (not the only one against it), you'll have a long fight ahead of you... Rror (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You still didn't deal with my points intellectually, and now you're threatening me with long fights? Sounds to me like you're afraid you're losing, especially since you now feel the need to bolster your opinion by stating that you're not alone. I'm still waiting for an intellectual response to my points about policy vs. pragmatism...and since you've failed to offer one up, I'm re-adding the mnemonic to the article for the time being. Nuberger13 (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The claim is not that it is widely-used...the claim is that it's helpful. Stick to what was said, please. Also, the point is not about pronunciation - it's about remembering which tree is the loblolly when you're looking at a mixed forest of various species of pine. Nuberger13 (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for clarifying my misunderstanding of the purpose of the mnemonic.  My earlier statement seems a little silly in light of that.  In any case, my statement on original research, NFT and IAR are still valid.  We really can't make things up and make them part of the encyclopedia, no matter how helpful they are.  In addition to my previous statement, I'd add that I can envision no scenario in which IAR would be an acceptable reason for not sourcing something.  What if, for example, the statement was in a book, verbatim?  Then we have copyright issues.  IAR can't apply.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, IAR specifically exempts itself from contradicting the other five pillars, which include verifiability: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here."--Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "We really can't make things up and make them part of the encyclopedia, no matter how helpful they are." <--- that's exactly what I said is the problem here - that you (and the other editor in question) are sticking to "policy just for the sake of policy". (Verbatim: And yet despite the fact that it's something the average person would benefit from, you're fighting to remove it, just so you can pat yourself on the back about what a good little policy-nazi you are.) When Wikipedia actually gets to the point where we say "helpfulness is out the door, what we're building here is a monument to POLICY" - which is what I hear when you say "we can't do it no matter how helpful it is" - then it will have been lost. My argument here is that there are some situations where sticking rigidly to policy results in useful and valuable information being removed from what is probably the sole article the average person Google-searching for info about lobollies will read...and that thus we should take the pragmatic approach of ignoring the rules on this case-by-case basis, in the big-picture interests of sticking with the whole larger point of Wikipedia, which is NOT to be all self-congratulatory about our strict adherence to policy, but which rather is to impart useful information to the average person. This is useful. How exactly does it hurt the article? And where else would it go, if not this article here on Wikipedia? There's not some book out there like "Mnemonics for Pine Trees". ALSO: in regards to your argument about "What if, for example, the statement was in a book, verbatim? Then we have copyright issues. IAR can't apply." - that is the very definition of a straw man argument...it's NOT the issue at hand, so, again, please stick to what has actually been said. No one has advocated for abridgment of copyright (which, btw, is also different insofar as it isn't just some inconsequential Wikipedia policy, but involves actual real-world laws.) Nuberger13 (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the "maybe it's in a book" remark as a backhanded suggestion that you may have picked it up from a field guide or something. Personally, I don't see it as particularly helpful even if it had a source, since I can look out my window and see spruce trees of the exact same shape, with bare trunks and growth only at the top, and they have spruces in the south as well. This isn't about  being slavish to policy, but rather about the underlying principles behind the policy. Anybody can make up something like this, and maybe they are the only person in the world who would actually find it helpful. Maybe I think they look like hobgoblins and I use that to remember the name. Is mine more or less helpful than yours? Which should stay in the article and which should not? That is why we can't just make things up and add them because we believe they are helpful. Our own observations and interpretations are not relevant. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now THAT is a legitimate argument - and a good one. I agree, and hereby end the discussion, conceding in your favor. Thanks for your time and input! Nuberger13 (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad we were able to settle this. Let's get back to building the encyclopedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  lollipop mnemonic 

message: After reviewing the proposed wording and the arguments above:  The wording is clearly original research and seems to violate WP:NFT.  Nuberger13 argues that WP:IAR should apply here.  This is not a case where excluding the proposed wording negatively impacts the project so IAR shouldn't be applied here.  IMO, without reliable sources to support a claim that this is a widely used mnemonic, it should not be included.  As a side note, I don't understand the need for a mnemonic at all:  if you can pronounce lollipop, you probably can figure out loblolly.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim is not that it is widely-used...the claim is that it's helpful. Stick to what was said, please. Also, the point is not about pronunciation - it's about remembering which tree is the loblolly when you're looking at a mixed forest of various species of pine. Nuberger13 (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for clarifying my misunderstanding of the purpose of the mnemonic.  My earlier statement seems a little silly in light of that.  In any case, my statement on original research, NFT and IAR are still valid.  We really can't make things up and make them part of the encyclopedia, no matter how helpful they are.  In addition to my previous statement, I'd add that I can envision no scenario in which IAR would be an acceptable reason for not sourcing something.  What if, for example, the statement was in a book, verbatim?  Then we have copyright issues.  IAR can't apply.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, IAR specifically exempts itself from contradicting the other five pillars, which include verifiability: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here."--Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "We really can't make things up and make them part of the encyclopedia, no matter how helpful they are." <--- that's exactly what I said is the problem here - that you (and the other editor in question) are sticking to "policy just for the sake of policy". (Verbatim: And yet despite the fact that it's something the average person would benefit from, you're fighting to remove it, just so you can pat yourself on the back about what a good little policy-nazi you are.) When Wikipedia actually gets to the point where we say "helpfulness is out the door, what we're building here is a monument to POLICY" - which is what I hear when you say "we can't do it no matter how helpful it is" - then it will have been lost. My argument here is that there are some situations where sticking rigidly to policy results in useful and valuable information being removed from what is probably the sole article the average person Google-searching for info about lobollies will read...and that thus we should take the pragmatic approach of ignoring the rules on this case-by-case basis, in the big-picture interests of sticking with the whole larger point of Wikipedia, which is NOT to be all self-congratulatory about our strict adherence to policy, but which rather is to impart useful information to the average person. This is useful. How exactly does it hurt the article? And where else would it go, if not this article here on Wikipedia? There's not some book out there like "Mnemonics for Pine Trees". ALSO: in regards to your argument about "What if, for example, the statement was in a book, verbatim? Then we have copyright issues. IAR can't apply." - that is the very definition of a straw man argument...it's NOT the issue at hand, so, again, please stick to what has actually been said. No one has advocated for abridgment of copyright (which, btw, is also different insofar as it isn't just some inconsequential Wikipedia policy, but involves actual real-world laws.) Nuberger13 (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the "maybe it's in a book" remark as a backhanded suggestion that you may have picked it up from a field guide or something. Personally, I don't see it as particularly helpful even if it had a source, since I can look out my window and see spruce trees of the exact same shape, with bare trunks and growth only at the top, and they have spruces in the south as well. This isn't about  being slavish to policy, but rather about the underlying principles behind the policy. Anybody can make up something like this, and maybe they are the only person in the world who would actually find it helpful. Maybe I think they look like hobgoblins and I use that to remember the name. Is mine more or less helpful than yours? Which should stay in the article and which should not? That is why we can't just make things up and add them because we believe they are helpful. Our own observations and interpretations are not relevant. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now THAT is a legitimate argument - and a good one. I agree, and hereby end the discussion, conceding in your favor. Thanks for your time and input! Nuberger13 (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad we were able to settle this. Let's get back to building the encyclopedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: I deleted the statement about loblolly being the AR state tree as it is not altogether correct.  The 1939 State Legislature designated the official state tree as the pine tree.  Since two native species are common in in the State, confusion exists about it being loblolly (for example, as previously stated in this article) or shortleaf (for example, see ).   A similar circumstance exists in NC, but is further complicated by more species of common pines.    Pinethicket (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: State tree

message: The Bastrop State Park photograph is more indicative of a place, not a tree species.  Consequently, I reverted to the previous photograph that shows a loblolly pine tree, which is the subject of this Article. Woodlot (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bastrop photo is 3 megabytes, and shows mature specimens in a natural population very well. The Arkansas photo is very poor quality, less than 100 kilobytes (a thirtieth of the size), very obvious in the appalling jpeg artefacts conspicuous even in the thumbnail. Please put the Bastrop photo back. If you don't like that Bastrop photo, then try this other Bastrop photo from Commons :File:Pinus taeda Bastrop1.jpg, that is also very high quality (3.5 megabytes) and shows the species well. Another high resolution possibility is :File:2008-07-24 Pine tree at Duke University.jpg, though this is less suitable as it shows a cultivated tree, not a natural one. 160.53.250.112 (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: '''''Pinus taeda''''' Photograph