Talk:Wollemia

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Very strong object to above move

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Photos Uploaded to the Commons

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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".  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)
thread_title: Trademarked name?

message: 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)
thread_title: Genetics: indistinguishable vs. identical?

message: "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)
thread_title: unsigned comment

message: 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)
thread_title:  topic - species or something else 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Replacing Reference NPWS 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  saved from fire threat: real news or government propaganda? Effect of fire retardant? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A double negative phrase.