This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article uses text donated by Wildscreen from their ARKive project (see below). For further information, please see Wikipedia:GLAM/ARKive. |
The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from
Wildscreen
ARKive texts. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under both the
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license and the
GNU Free Documentation License. You may use either or both licenses. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by
VRT volunteers, under ticket number
2011090810014488. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en wikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission. |
The result of the debate was to move to Wollemi Pine. -- liquidGhoul 04:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Article_titles_and_common_names, in my experience working on species-stuff between here and the Commons, stuff here is always at the common name with the scientific species name as a RDR. pfctdayelise ( translate?) 13:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Proposed move back to Wollemia:
MPF 00:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
This discussion has been stalled for ages, and I don't see consensus. Meanwhile, WP:PLANTS has thrashed out naming conventions for flora, which, if applied in this case, would see the article returned to its original title.
In 24 hours, if there are no cogent objections, I will move the article back to Wollemia, not because there is consensus for that title, but because there is no consensus. The original title, which is supported by guidelines, should be the status quo, and we should be testing for consensus to ignore the guidelines and overturn the original title, rather than the other way around.
Snottygobble 01:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
The reference labelled NPWS in revision https://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article uses text donated by Wildscreen from their ARKive project (see below). For further information, please see Wikipedia:GLAM/ARKive. |
The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from
Wildscreen
ARKive texts. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under both the
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license and the
GNU Free Documentation License. You may use either or both licenses. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by
VRT volunteers, under ticket number
2011090810014488. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en wikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission. |
The result of the debate was to move to Wollemi Pine. -- liquidGhoul 04:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Article_titles_and_common_names, in my experience working on species-stuff between here and the Commons, stuff here is always at the common name with the scientific species name as a RDR. pfctdayelise ( translate?) 13:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Proposed move back to Wollemia:
MPF 00:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
This discussion has been stalled for ages, and I don't see consensus. Meanwhile, WP:PLANTS has thrashed out naming conventions for flora, which, if applied in this case, would see the article returned to its original title.
In 24 hours, if there are no cogent objections, I will move the article back to Wollemia, not because there is consensus for that title, but because there is no consensus. The original title, which is supported by guidelines, should be the status quo, and we should be testing for consensus to ignore the guidelines and overturn the original title, rather than the other way around.
Snottygobble 01:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
The reference labelled NPWS in revision https://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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)