Talk:Pinyon pine

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Production after 8 years ?

The article states: "Once established, the trees may start production as early as 8 years from seed and they will continue production for their lifespan."

-- Production of what ? Nuts ? And isn't 8 years a rather long time for this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.56.30 (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Production of seeds. These trees grow slowly and in a less than ideal location the tree can take decades to reach sexual maturity. --Una Smith (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a forest of piñon pines produce seeds / cones all together, usually in cycles of four years or seven years. This is called "masting." They do not produce cones every year. Now and then a few confused trees will produce every second year, and some will produce cones every third year; unseasonably cool end-of-summers are thought to trigger masting events, but as far as I know that has not been established by studies. --Desertphile (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pinyon? Really?

Does wikipedia have an article entitled "Jalapenyo (or jalapeño)" too? The proper spelling of the piñon is, incidentally, piñon. 97.123.70.232 (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling "piñon" and "pinyon" are both 100% correct. Various universities in the American Southwest use the "pinyon" spelling in their ecology papers, including University of Colorado and University of New Mexico. --Desertphile (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is in a couple papers does not mean it is correct. I am a physicist and I have read papers with errors in them, especially explosives-related papers from professors of universities. Academic papers are not fool-proof. And as the earlier poster said, you don't see any pages called jalapenyo. These wikipedia articles should be using the most used spelling (piñon) not some bastardized version of spanish (pinyon).192.12.184.6 (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinyon, REALLY. This article is in English. English has no "ñ" (or accented letters, or umlats, or any other foreign characters for that matter). Although piñon is the original foreign word, it has been incorporated into English and anglicized to "pinyon". BeadleB (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piñon is correct, "pinyon" is not. Until corrections are made (or a page titled jalapenyo in regard to the pepper surfaces), the first paragraph will include both piñon and "pinyon" to help dampen mass confusion; many do not recognize piñon and "pinyon" are the same thing, and pronounce it as and confuse it with a pinion. As with other adopted words, such as jalapeño, English can indeed contain foreign symbols.Kehkou (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birds?

The inclusion of Pinyon Jay birds in an article of trees doesn't seem logical to me. Why not just link to a page about Pinyon Jays? --Desertphile (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human-caused Climate Change

Entire Pinyon Pine forests in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado are being wiped out by the human-caused increase in regional climates. New Mexico's Climate Division Two has seen a rise in temperature of about 1.2c in the past 50 years, and in some parts of Colorado the increase is almost 2c. Cone seed production has decreased by around 40% in the past 40 years, and huge sections of forests are dead and diseased. Perhaps someone can find the time to write a section in the article on the subject. --Desertphile (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. A majority hold that "pinyon" is valid and common English usage. (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinyon pine → Piñon pine – A lot of people seem confused or even offended by the less-used Anglicized version, it would therefore benefit the project to use the correct spelling and include "Pinyon" as an alternate spelling. Kehkou (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support I feel it would benefit the project for reasons stated on the talk page, with "pinyon" included in the first sentence as the alternate spelling, and namespace "Pinyon pine" redirecting back to the main article.Kehkou (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAMES and WP:UE. All of the sources and external links for the article use "pinyon". The USDA Plants Database[1], US Forest Service[2], the National Park Service[3], and other relevant sources (e.g. NAU Arboretum, Pines of Arizona) use "pinyon" and almost none even give "piñon" as an option. Ditto with scholarly papers. This Google Ngram gives an idea of relative usage in books — not even close. — AjaxSmack 03:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:UE This is the English Wikipedia, and we have an English name available, so it should be the one being used. This is not the Spanish Wikipedia. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Do not use foreignisms. Use WP:ENGLISH. RGloucester — ☎ 19:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Do we have to move canyon to cañón, too? — AjaxSmack 02:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point, and shows how this is a two sided thing, hence the request, as per WP:COMMONNAMES as opposed to being bold; "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" . Piñon is really on a razor's edge. No English speaker in the USA, for example, uses "cañón". On the opposite end of the spectrum, no one uses "jalapenyo" either. And while I've never met or knew anyone there who uses "pinyon", I'm sure there is still a place somewhere that uses this spelling. Kehkou (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may use piñon but this shows that most sources don't. And there is nothing inaccurate or ambiguous about the term. — AjaxSmack 03:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: "literature uses "pinyon" more" is a valid (and good) argument. "This is an English Wikipedia" is not a valid argument. See:Jalapeño and WP:NAME.Kehkou (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:Use English -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically the last sentence in the header. Again not a valid argument. The very same sentence shows how Ajaxsmack's is a valid and convincing one that has specifics. Your position, however, is a valid one. Kehkou (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language -- Thus English Wikipedia uses English. "Jalapeño" has become English as a borrowed term. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the article is not about a sensible topic, but rather that collection of pines which happen to have "pinyon" or "piñon" in their common name, but which do not form a scientifically recognized taxon, the best solution would be to replace it with a set index article, called by whatever is the commonest name in English language sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pinyon?

And this is exactly why Wiipedia has very little respect in academia. The vast majority of people and businesses in New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona use "Pinon". So just because a few people spell it incorrectly as "Pinyon" (which I have NEVER seen spelled this way) that makes it ok? I guess the saying is true..."If enough people believe it, it will eventually become fact". This is despicable. 206.197.198.4 (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As you can see above, I tried to move the page to Piñon, but that failed. Interestingly, no one offered a valid explanation why there is no page on english wiki titled "Jalapenyo".Kehkou (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which has under its jurisdiction the United States Forest Service -- and the National Forest system -- spells it "pinyon." A search on JSTOR, the premier repository for scholarly articles, lists 263 articles for "pinyon." That's not nobody and that's a lot more than "NEVER." Smallchief (talk 21:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to have any respect for comments like those of 206.197.198.4 and Kehkou above when 7 references listed in the article have "pinyon" in their title, 4 have "piñon" and 1 has "pinon". The Google ngram here is pretty definitive too. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it's hard to take comments like this seriously when there seems to be an absence of people selling "Pinyons", all selling "piñons instead. I agree that WP uses published sources, not real world data. But alas, this conversation has panned out before. I suggest reading the preceding archived section. To save you some time, consensus was that "pinyon" while sounding like a gear, is a valid English usage.Kehkou (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Real world data' includes what is published (in fact, if something is data at all, it almost certainly must have been published). Since this is about the pine, here is I think a more accurate ngram, showing 'pinyon pine' is highest over other names. The ngrams are not chauvinistic one way or the other, just real world data. Hamamelis (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, in English fiction, 'pinon pine' is highest (see). Hamamelis (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I didn't word it correctly. 'real world scenario' is more on the money. And why does this keep dragging on? Consensus was reached, people. Not much more can be done short of flooding the article with cites that reference 'piñon' as the spelling.Kehkou (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if enough documents cite something incorrectly, that makes it ok? Someone above mentioned errors in explosives related papers. I happen to be an explosives engineer and I see that all the time. I have read SEVERAL books and papers that state that a shaped charge melts its liner and creates a molten jet, but this is wrong. I know it is wrong because I have experimentally tested it myself; others have as well. All of these other books and papers who state and cite that incorrectly doesn't make the molten jet theory magically true. Anything being cited in a paper does automatically not make it true, especially if it does not match up with the everyday real world. The original source could be wrong and then other sources build off that, especially if they live in the east and have no way of knowing any better. I challenge you to find one person in AZ, CO, or NM who sells, grows, or picks pinon who spells it as "pinyon". And back to my earlier point, opponents of changing the ridiculous spelling of "Pinyon" to "Pinon" is the epitome of "if enough people believe something that's false, it will eventually become true." This article should be using the most commonly used version of this word.206.197.198.4 (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One last attempt at reasoning: spelling and word usage are not like scientific facts. The usage of a majority of reliable sources (in a given variety of English) establishes the spelling to be used. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"majority of reliable sources"? That's not true. No one can know how many sources are out there. I could find just as many sources that spell it as "pinon". And who is to say they are reliable? You? As I said earlier, how are people writing papers in the east, who dont even live near it, or have lived near it for a couple years, going to be more reliable than the people who use pinon to make a livelihood for themselves in the southwest? They only people saying they are reliable sources are each other (because theyre citing each other) and you.2601:0:C00:CF00:ADBE:6EBE:8767:B56 (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]