Talk:Pinus radiata/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Pinus radiata. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 31 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Addisoneftekhari.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Article naming

How's that moving trick done? Maybe this should really be "Monterey pine". I think "radiata pine" is a NZ invention, derived from "pinus radiata". --pm67nz - Never mind - noticed the "Move this page" link! --pm67nz ......

Congratulations! It can be tricky, first time.

Nope: it's a very common name for Pinus radiata in many places around the world. Here in Australia, for example, we also call them "Radiata Pine". There is, in other words, no "right" place to list this.

There are a couple of Wikipedia rules (well, more loose guidelines actually) that apply here:

Use the most readily recognised unambiguous common name. Unfortunately, there isn't one, in this case. Montery Pine and Radiata Pine are both common. Say "Monterry Pine" in New Zealand (or a lot of other places) and no-one will know what you are talking about. But "Radiata Pine" has exactly the same problem, only in reverse.

In International English vs US English conflicts, the 'pedia rule is to go with whichever one is first used: in this instance, it's "Radiata Pine".

But then there is the argument that, seeing as it is native to N Am,erica, the N American name should take primacy. (I know that if an American or an Englishman tries to use a foreign (i.e., UK only) name for an Australian native species, I'll revert them quick smart.)

All of which leaves ..... a confusing mess! Neither name is satisfactory for an international encyclopedia. In fact, it seems to me that the only way to resolve this tricky one is to place the page under the only title that the species is universally recognised by: i.e., Pinus radiata - with, of course, appropriate redirects from Monterey Pine and Radiata Pine. I'll do that in a moment. Tannin 07:42, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Frequently in NZ it refered to as just simply "radiata" and there is no confusion. The name "Monterey Pine" is almost never used but sometimes comes up as an afterthought.ping 10:38, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yeah. We sometimes say just "radiata" over here too. Either that or "more bloody pine trees". Depends on the context, really. Tannin

For the record, the page first appeared as "Pinus radiata", so now it's done the full cycle! There was also a preexisting link to "Monterey pine" from the pine page. I changed the page from "radiata pine" to "monterey pine" because that is the original common name, even though as a kiwi I never use it (or even remember it). Given redirects it doesn't matter for the purposes of finding the page, just perceved 'correctness', and there is no way anyone could object to "monterey pine" on those grounds, whereas "radiata pine" (no matter where exactly it was coined) mildly annoys me whenever I hear it, because my guess is that it originated with people unwilling to say anything as pretentious as "Pinus radiata" but not knowing any other name! pm67nz

Not sure about that. People talk about contorta and bloody ellioti and radiate fits neatly into the same shorthand. Also people talk about Scots Pine vs Radiata pine. Whatever. It doesn't really matter. Fortunately these days hardly anyone still talks about Kauri pine, Red pine or White pine which are all NZ natives and not pinus at all. ping 08:28, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Conservation Status

I'm a bit surprised that this species' conservation status is Low Risk rather than Secure. I very much doubt that radiata will that ever disappear from New Zealand or Chile, given its commercial value. I think there is almost zero risk of extinction. --GringoInChile 16:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess it is because many of the native population are seriously threatened. SCHZMO ✍ 23:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Initial class and importance ratings of article set forth

I have added the project california tag and suggested an initial rating of "B" and a class of high importance. The B rating stems from the fact that the article is usable, and further:

Writing: Satisfactory NPOV: Satisfactory Images: Satisfactory References: Fair Breadth: Fair

The reason i assign a high importance is that there are not all that many full stature native trees in California, and this one had a large historic coastal range; further, its forests are associated with a high rate of endemiscism of lower plants. Would like to her others' ideas. Anlace 15:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Must admit I'd differ slightly in interpretation - much as narrow endemics are of interest to plant nerds like us, globally, they are of relatively low importance (for the Calif project, I'd count as important species those that are widely distributed, or iconic like Sequoia sempervirens, etc). But equally, Monterey Pine is one of the most important species in global plantation forestry, so that does increase its importance (to humans). Of improving the article - first and foremost, a good photo of the species in its native habitat, for the taxobox. Can't do this myself, regrettably. Currently all the pics at commons are of cultivated trees (to which I could add any number more if I wanted to!). Otherwise, some refs and more details on taxonomy, distribution (inc. map), etc (which I can do). - MPF 10:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

i agree with most of your observations MPF, but i stick with my opinion of "high". this article is certainly as important as Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. i dont think one has to be a plant nerd in California to appreciate the role of a majestic tree, which happens to have broad use to humans and whose own endemicism is linked to habitats for many other endemics. anyway plant nerds have at least an equal voice to baseball fans out here [i happen to fall in both categories :) ]. i shall get a photo of this tree at some point also. best regards. Anlace 15:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"this article is certainly as important as Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" Never heard of them! Grief, the page doesn't even have a photo! Definitely "low" importance :-) MPF 16:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Found this article informative.

Some comments and help for those working on this page.

As for name, correct, pinus radiata D.Don, as well as:

Monterey pine
insignis pine
radiata pine
Cambria pine
Guadalupe Island pine
Cedros Island pine

Source: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinrad/all.html

As for current picture, I do not find it gives a good visual sense of what these pines look like.

There are some excellent pics and information at: http://www.cnr.vt.edu/dendro/dendrology/syllabus/factsheet.cfm?ID=232 Perhaps permission could be sought.

Alternatively, I can supply some pics free (no copyright) to use from examples at home in Australia if requested. I can supply close up of leaves, + pics of very old ones - 125+ years (email me contactcameron@yahoo(omitthisplusbrackets).co.uk.

Cameron downunder. 203.206.238.232 09:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Edited for categories

I just edited the way this shows up in the category "Pinus." It had been set up to alphabetize there under the common name, "Monterey Pine." But this didn't make sense since it showed on the list with the binomial (scientific) name. So I changed it to realphabetize it that way. But I added the Redirect page to the Category. So now, the common name does show. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Nice pix

Can we use these?:

Snori (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Using this photo Photos from the Brousseau Collection are the intellectual property of Saint Mary's College and their fair use should follow the conventional citation protocol. The citation should read: � Br. Alfred Brousseau, Saint Mary's College. Permission to use is granted freely to not-for-profit organizations and for a per-image fee for commercial use. Contact Prof. R. P. Olowin at St. Mary's College rpolowin@stmarys-ca.edu for more information. A8v (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Photo is misleading or ??

The photo appears to be of a natural Monteray pine which looks absolutely nothing like the Pinus Radiata so common in NZ and Australia.The moderm pine is twice as tall with a single leader with much darker foliage, a straight trunk and branches that radiate evenly.The planatation grown trees are routinely high pruned so the lower 6m of the trunk (at least)is bare of branches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.186.217 (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There are more photos in wikimedia commons. Follow the link from near the bottom of the page. A "real" tree seems most appropriate for the lead photo. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Overhaul

Much of the page needs a massive overhaul, which requires considerable consultation with the editor who handles Edit requests, despite the lack of protected page status. Problem is how to access the editor in question in this situation. Rowland Burdon [email redacted] 30 July 2019

I’m not sure what you mean by “consult the editor”. Anybody can directly edit Wikipedia pages. If you know what you’re talking about, and have reliable sources, you are very welcome to dive in and start editing. Darorcilmir (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I've redacted your email address to save you from webcrawling spambots, but it's visible through the page history. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

How long do they live?

Can someone please add how long these trees live for? Morgan Leigh | Talk 09:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Sarafinadh (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)