This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of
Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support; if there is a name which is common, recognizable, and precise we should use it; usually this will be the Linnaean, but when it is not, we should not insist on it against usage. We have an article at
Gray wolf, not
Canis lupus; why should trees be treated differently? (This will rarely arise for anything smaller; even
Camellia sinensis is probably better than the ambiguous Tea plant).
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson01:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. When I reverted the earlier move, I got more hits for "Abies amabilis" than "Pacific Silver Fir" in Google Scholar and Google Books, a crude calculation of the preferred name in reliable sources. It's clearly the most commonly used name in our reliable sources.
Rkitko(
talk)02:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)reply
ETA: This species also has several vernacular names (e.g.
[1]). I even found that the most common vernacular name in the late 19th century was "white fir". That would make the species name the least ambiguous for this article and why it should remain here.
Rkitko(
talk)02:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose essentially per Rkitko. Raw Google hits are all but meaningless; Google Scholar and Books hits are more indicative of usage in reliable sources.
Ucucha14:37, 17 September 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of
Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support; if there is a name which is common, recognizable, and precise we should use it; usually this will be the Linnaean, but when it is not, we should not insist on it against usage. We have an article at
Gray wolf, not
Canis lupus; why should trees be treated differently? (This will rarely arise for anything smaller; even
Camellia sinensis is probably better than the ambiguous Tea plant).
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson01:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. When I reverted the earlier move, I got more hits for "Abies amabilis" than "Pacific Silver Fir" in Google Scholar and Google Books, a crude calculation of the preferred name in reliable sources. It's clearly the most commonly used name in our reliable sources.
Rkitko(
talk)02:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)reply
ETA: This species also has several vernacular names (e.g.
[1]). I even found that the most common vernacular name in the late 19th century was "white fir". That would make the species name the least ambiguous for this article and why it should remain here.
Rkitko(
talk)02:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose essentially per Rkitko. Raw Google hits are all but meaningless; Google Scholar and Books hits are more indicative of usage in reliable sources.
Ucucha14:37, 17 September 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.