Talk:Pseudotsuga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Douglas-fir)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Plants (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Canada / British Columbia (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
 
WikiProject United States / Washington (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (marked as Low-importance).
 

Move "Douglas-fir" to "Pseudotsuga"[edit]

The Douglas-fir article is now an article about the genus Pseudotsuga, not about the North American species Pseudotsuga menziesii, whose article is named Coast Douglas-fir. This causes continuously misconceptions: in the Douglas-fir article there is much information related only to Pseudotsuga menziesii, and many other articles link to the Douglas-fir article although the Coast Douglas-fir article would be more relevant. Therefore I suggest: The "Douglas-fir" article would be renamed to "Pseudotsuga", "Douglas-fir" would be made a redirect to "Coast Douglas-fir", and all the information related only to P. menziesii in the current "Douglas-fir" article would be moved to the "Coast Douglas-fir" article. Any opinions? Krasanen (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I realized there are also many articles with a link to the Douglas-fir article meaning really the whole genus. So, maybe it is not a good idea to put into effect the renaming and redirect as I wrote. However, I would still move all the information related only to P. menziesii in the current "Douglas-fir" article to the "Coast Douglas-fir" (and "Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir" if needed) article. Krasanen (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I moved most (but not all) of the content related only to P. menziesii. Krasanen (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
There really aren't very many articles with a link to Douglas-fir meaning the whole genus. The vast majority of articles linking here are about places in the NW US or SW Canada where Pseudotsuga menziesii is an important part of the landscape, and the only species of Pseudotsuga present. There are some articles about places in other parts of the world where Douglas-fir has been introduced; but P. menziesii is the only species grown on a commercial scale outside of it's native range (i.e. in New Zealand), and the only species naturalized in Great Britain. On the rare occasions when another species is being called "douglas-fir", it is almost always qualified in some way (big-cone, Mexican, Chinese, etc.). There is no qualifier for P. menziesii (Coast douglas-fir is Psuedotsuga menziesii var. menziesii).Plantdrew (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The hyphen thing...[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the case of both this article, and of Coast Douglas-fir, that hyphen is really odd-looking. It may be something used by scientific writers to designate that this isn't a "true fir", but "most common usage" is supposed to prevail; nowhere but in Wikipedia have I ever seen "Douglas-fir", I've only ever seen "Douglas fir" (and often with both caps "Douglas Fir"). Ditto with "redcedar", which especially with Western red cedar (or Western Red Cedar) is another example of a technical usage dominating Wikipedia when the most common usage is clearly different. It may be that the title of this article "has" to be that; but in many, many places/articles it just looks out of place, e.g. in British Columbia articles, Canadian English usage is supposed to prevail; and the usage is "Douglas fir" and "Western red cedar" in those two cases; hyphens nowhere to be seen.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Douglas-fir seems to dominate in a Google Scholar search.[1] WP:NC says, "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain." I doubt that a proposal to change the title to Douglas fir would gain a consensus since there are good reasons for the existing title and it has been stable for a long time. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Your point is taken, but if a name is from another form of English than that related to the subject matter, it doesn't make sense; why the hyphenated version predominates in Google may very well be simply because of all the wiki-clones out there; to me it looks like a British-ism and/or just looks wrong. Discouting the probability of the wikiclones re google, and noting that google is not teh arbiter of "most common usage", I'd say the North American standard for this, or the Pacific Northwest standard perhaps, should apply; and I've never seen "Douglas-fir" in a publication from BC or Washington or Alaska....or the contracted form "redcedar" either.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I cited Google Scholar above, so wiki-clones are not included, only "scholarly" (professional journals and the like) sources are included. These are good sources according to WP:NC. That isn't to say that you can't make the argument, but it is unlikely to gain a consensus, since some will certainly cite Google Scholar in favor of the current title. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hadn't noticed that...but how many of those sites are British in origin? And wouldn't sites like the British Columbia Ministry of Forests (actually currently British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range but such titles tend to change with cabinet shuffles, MoF is the main one - their online library is here and has all kinds of good stuff...this glossary is interesting but doesn't have tree species listed) or United States Forest Service also qualify as official and/or scholarly?Skookum1 (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I just checked the MoF library search; there are 2638 entries for "Douglas fir" (w/wo capitals, the capitalized form being common) and 2109 for "Douglas-fir"...pretty much a draw I guess, in statistical terms even just within this one jurisdiction/ministry....in news media it's usually without the hyphen, however....Skookum1 (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
For a discussion on this, see here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive14#Douglas-fir. And I think this applies as well: Argumentum_ad_populum. Eric talk 14:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion closed — no consensus for rename. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hyphen discussion 2011-12[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yeah, wha'ts with that hyphen anyway? It's definitely NOT common usage in British Columbia, where this is one of the main "commercial crops" and very very common (often capital-F Douglas Fir, too). It's getting tiresome to have to pipe [[Douglas-fir|Douglas fir]] all the time in order to represent Canadian usage in CAnadian articles, I'd venture the same issue applies to other Pacific Northwest-related articles. Is "Douglas-fir" really "most common usage" or is it just a wiki-affectation based on some reading/interpolation of this or that source?Skookum1 (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a wiki-only phenomenon: there are a number of sources that use it (see WT:WikiProject Plants/Archive14#Douglas-fir for the last discussion). I'm neutral on whether WP should use the hyphen or not, but you may wish to bring this up at WT:WikiProject Plants if you feel strongly about it. —hike395 (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why Skookum1 is bringing this up again only 18 months after s/he proposed it previously at Talk:Douglas-fir#The_hyphen_thing.... But, having been through the process, s/he should know where and how to proceed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The hyphen leaps out from the page as plainly incorrect to anyone who really understands how hyphens are meant to be used in English, and Skookum1 apparently has hope that we can make Wikipedia look better. Some Wikipedians have cited this use of the hyphen in books and U.S. gov't publications as arguments that it should be used here, but WP is merely promulgating the bad style and lack of professional proofreading in those publications. The hyphen is wrong here. Most of us have at one time or another proceeded on notions that we later found to be misconceptions--e.g. Journey's music is tolerable, the Pacer is a cool car--it happens to the best of us. Anyone who really wants to understand this hyphenation question can find the guidance if they look for it. People who don't want to know that they've been in error all this time will merely cite erroneous sources to support their delusion. Eric talk 16:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Skookum1 has been annoyed by this since he first saw it - and by "Western redcedar" - but has been too busy elsewhere in Wikipedia with more important problems to bother saying anything about it, but finally ona recent "stroll" through the Vancouver article decided enough was enough, and I piped it there to the normal "Douglas fir". Coming from a part of the world where both it and the Western red cedar are a core feature of the economy and the landscape - and one which is not in the United States (as if Douglas-fir and Western redcedar were the common usages there, which they're not) I decided "enough was enough". I'm also kinda hyphen sensitive lately becaues of the ridiculous arguments put forward to support its eradication from titles which normally have it, in favour of the Almighty Endash and its typographical superiority over us backwards people who prefer English the way it was before Wikipedians came along and decided it needed re-inventing....Skookum1 (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia should just follow the system followed by entomologists where potentially misleading common names for taxa are all one word (e.g. ladybug, dragonfly). Redcedar is a botanical example of that system already. I think this page should be moved to Douglasfir. Additionally, since Pseudo-tsuga is more closely related to Larix than it is to Tsuga, while Pseudo-larix is more closely related to Tsuga than Larix, all mentions of the genus names Pseudo-tsuga and Pseudo-larix should be hyphenated to reduce confusion.70.242.143.57 (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The use of hyphens in genus names is governed by the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. In article 60.9 it states that a hyphen can be used if the name is composed of two words that could be used separately, but it explicitly states that this is not the case with pseudo-. Acer pseudoplatanus is given as an example that is not to be spelled Acer pseudo-platanus. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi 70.242.143.57 and Nadiatalent; I think this section is about the common name, not the genus. At the beginning of this section, Skookum1 discusses [[Douglas-fir|Douglas fir]]. This discussion is stale and Skookum1 is no longer active. It may be appropriate to archive this discussion unless there is renewed interest in this topic. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Hyphenating Pseudotsuga and Pseudolarix is not permitted and is a separate topic. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Requested move[edit]

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. 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: Moved to Pseudotsuga Mike Cline (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)



Douglas-firPseudotsuga – Douglas-fir is ambiguous, can refer to either the species Pseudotsuga menziesii, or the genus Pseudotsuga as a whole. Plantdrew (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Per WP:FLORA, scientific names are preferred for plant article titles. Douglas-fir overwhelmingly is used to refer specifically to Pseudotsuga menziesii, which is one of the most common trees in Western North America, an important timber source exported worldwide, and introduced into other parts of the temperate world. Usage of "douglas-fir" to refer to the genus as a whole rather than specifically for P. menziesii is comparatively rare. Of the other species of Pseudotsuga, only one is native to an English-speaking country (where it would actually have an English language "common" name), and none of them are cultivated to any significant extent outside their native range or exploited for timber on a major scale. When the other species are referred to as douglas-firs, a qualifier is almost always involved (i.e. Mexican douglas-fir, big-cone douglas-fir, etc.). There is no qualified form of the name for P. menziesii which would disambiguate it; it is simply "douglas-fir".

It's clear from context that the vast majority of incoming links to this article are referring to P. menziesii, not the entire genus. It may be desirable to retain Douglas-fir as a disambiguation page, but I would suggest redirecting Douglas-fir to Pseudotsuga menziesii. P. menziesii is sufficiently important that renaming that article to a common name (either Douglas-fir or Douglas fir) may be worthwhile.Plantdrew (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I support this move. Also, I support redirecting Douglas-fir to Pseudotsuga menziesii. Thank you for the proposal. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I also support this move. WP:FLORA states
Scientific names are to be used as article titles in all cases except when a plant has an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany; e.g. rose, apple, watermelon.
I would argue that "douglas-fir" is not more prominent in forestry than it is in botany. Also, WP:FLORA directs us:
In cases where multiple taxa share the same common name, a disambiguation page should be used.
Given that both the genus and M. menziesii share the Douglas-fir common name, I would convert Douglas-fir to a dab page. —hike395 (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Support move as per relevant wikiproject guidelines. This type of ambiguity is difficult for a novice to understand with the current arrangement of page names, and that would be simplified by the move and disambiguation. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Support, as suggested by Curtis Clark in this sobering discussion from 2007. Will be a nice improvement to get that yucky hyphen out of the article title. Eric talk 16:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The majority of readers searching for "Douglas-fir" are probably looking for P. menziesii, so I hope the lemma doesn't become a DAB. As Plantdrew points out, species that grow primarily in non-English speaking countries can't really be said to have English-language common names. A DAB with only two entries would go against WP:TWODABS. Kauffner (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, we can move this article to Pseudotsuga, and have a hatnote to the species, which is already there. —hike395 (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: The hyphen is strange. My understanding is that hyphens are generally used to create compound modifiers, not compound nouns. Let's get rid of the hyphen one way or another. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Reading the previous move discussion just above, it seems that my absence was sufficient cause for at least one editor to dismiss my rationale/testimony. Barrelproof is quite right, it looks strange; to me in fact it looks French, of all things; that there's been a war on the hyphen from the MOS crowd, applying it where they say it doesn't belong and throwing mdashes around on common terms (and forbidding the use of hyphens for paired words even though they're common usages), but this one gets rationalized as "correct" is forcing against WP:COMMONNAME and propping up a false paradigm. It's odd as "redcedar" which is also really strange looking, but even moreso would be "Western-redcedar" (the normal usage is "Western red cedar", often fully capitalized.......but for other trees also, I don't recall seeing Douglas-maple or Norway-maple or English-elm etc......this is an anomaly, backed up only by odd academic style; I mentioned BC in my first sally because this tree is (or was) one of hte mainstays of the local economy for decades; almost tempted to say "more than anywhere else on earth" but I don't know the forest stats for Washington, Oregon, Alaska etc.....the common usage "in my parts" is clearly Douglas Fir. Here's a search for "Vancouver Sun"+"douglas fir" and while some douglas-fir listings show up, the predominant usage (other than wiki clones and pieces of academica) is "Douglas fir". I also checked the Ministry of Forests library and yes, douglas-fir does show up; but speaking again as someone raised in an area where this tree (and the Western Red Cedar) are foundations of the economy and so entrenched in the education system, I would have been scored down for using the hyphen. Is that OR? LOL, yeah well to me so is the contention that the hyphen is correct.Skookum1 (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Whatever a select group on a Wikiproject may decide, this is definitely against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). An Advanced Google search in English for Douglas fir excluding Wikipedia and Pseudotsuga gives 6,670,000 hits (781 unduplicated hits). A similar search for Pseudotsuga excluding Wikipedia and Douglas fir gives 144,000 hits (which turns out to be 731 unduplicated hits). Confine those searches to Google Books, and you get 1,670,000 hits (1,000 unduplicated hits) for Douglas fir and 148,000 hits (803 unduplicated hits) for Pseudotsuga. However, a large number of the Books hits for Pseudotsuga are for books in languages other than English (German, Italian, Dutch and Spanish), and a large proportion of the English publications use the term Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga), despite the search parameters (which don't seem to work on Books). On the general search there are a lot of false hits in both searches, including numerous roads named Douglas Fir Drive, various people called Pseudotsuga (yes, really!) and a place in Canada by that name (which seems to produce an enormous number of hits). The scientists among us may have a case for using the scientific name if this wasn't an extremely common tree, commonly used in the construction industry, and equally commonly used as Christmas trees. But it isn't something confined to their introspective little world, it is something that is commonly referred to by the rest of humankind, and not by its Latin name. Most readers searching for this are going to look for Douglas fir, and a good many are likely to be put off completely when they find themselves landing on a page about something in Latin. Incidentally, Skookum1 will be delighted to hear that the hyphenless version is infinitely more common than the hyphenated version, but will no doubt be distressed to hear that many of the hyphenated references are from his native Canada. On the basis of this, I would Support a move to Douglas fir. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I can see a good rationale for all common names redirecting to the binomial scientific name (which I supported above), despite this being the English Wikipedia. For one thing, such an approach would eliminate conflicts arising out of competing views on which common name wins the article title slot for a given species. But Skinsmoke makes good arguments above for the common name approach. Whether we move to Latin or simply lose the hyphen, we'll be improving the quality of the English on en.Wikipedia. Eric talk 17:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hold on: there's a basic contradiction here. Recall that the large majority of Douglas fir usage really refers to Pseudotsuga menziesii. So, there seems to be two rational moves of pages:
  1. Assume we want an article titled Douglas fir. Then, the right thing is to move the genus article currently at Douglas-fir to Pseudotsuga, and move the species article Pseudotsuga menziesii to Douglas fir, and leave a hatnote to the genus.
  2. Assume we only want scientific names as titles. Then we would move the current genus article to Pseudotsuga and make Douglas fir be a redirect to Pseudotsuga menziesii.
In either event we want to move this article to Pseudotsuga. Let's agree on this move, and then open a discussion at Talk:Pseudotsuga menziesii about whether to rename that article to its common name. —hike395 (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: No, that is not rational at all, and still goes against our policy (no longer just a guideline) to use the common English name. The logical thing is to move the genus article to Douglas fir, and to move the species article to Coast Douglas fir. That takes care of both disambiguation and common name elements. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a problem with your proposal: Coast Douglas fir is the variety Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii, not the species Pseudotsuga menziesii. —hike395 (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Using scientific names does not go against the WP:TITLE policy. The policy explicitly endorses the WP:FLORA guideline here: WP:MOSAT. WP:UCN (see footnote 3 especially) applies to commonly used names; scientific names may be more commonly used than "common names". The most commonly used name for the entire Douglas fir genus is probably Pseudotsuga, although Douglas fir is certainly the most commonly used name for the species Pseudotsuga menziesii. Of the article title criteria (WP:CRITERIA), Douglas-fir fails Precision, Consistency and Recognizability, and an unambiguous alternative using a common name (Douglas-fir (genus)??) would be less Concise. Recognizability is achieved by having people following a link to Douglas-fir arrive at the article on the common species. Consistency is achieved by using a scientific name for a title (as most other plant articles are titled). Titling the genus article Douglas-fir is not WP:PRECISE, and Pseudotsuga is a natural disambiguation (WP:NATURALDIS).Plantdrew (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
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.

Requested move: both genus and species articles[edit]

MOVED TO:

Move of genus article performed. Move of species article still under debate at Talk:Pseudotsuga menziesii

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. 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: Technical close to feed the BOT Mike Cline (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)



– The discussion about renaming Douglas-fir has brought up an interesting point. The term "Douglas fir" is well-known in consumers of forestry products, such as lumber and Christmas trees. This use of "Douglas fir" refers to trees in the species Pseudotsuga menziesii. Trees in the genus Pseudotsuga can be referred to as "Douglas firs", but that is not common outside of botany. Therefore, let us move the species article to its common name Douglas fir, and move the genus article to its scientific name Pseudotsuga. —hike395 (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


Discussion of double-page move starts here

Later: I find Skinsmoke's arguments quite persuasive, but they apply to the species Pseudotsuga menziesii -- that's the tree that is used in construction and Christmas trees. All of the other species in the genus Pseudotsuga are much rarer, and as far as I know, are not commonly used in forestry. Collectively, all of the species in Pseudotsuga could be called "Douglas firs", but that is not common English usage. Therefore, I currently
reiterate my Support for moving Douglas-fir to Pseudotsuga
Support moving Pseudotsuga menziesii to Douglas fir
I think we ought to have a second separate move discussion for the latter, though. —hike395 (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would be prepared to compromise on that one, provided the tree itself moves to the common English name. It wouldn't need a separate move discussion, the normal process would be to link that move into this move discussion and extend the discussion period to allow people a chance to comment on the combined proposal. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Endorse Skinsmoke It makes sense, doesn't it, that the common meaning in English should be presented in its most common form, and that the scientific genus-name be presented in Latin; works for me, and gets rid of all those hyphens in ordinary passages (largely non-scientific, at least not botanical ones, e.g. geography of forest regions and parks). Common meaning in common name, scientific meaning in Latin. Fairly straightforward when you look at it that way.Skookum1 (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm no Pseudotsuga subject-matter expert, but I think I can be consistent in saying ditto to Skookum1 here (and Skinsmoke) and support Hike395's proposition #1 above, if I understand everyone correctly. Eric talk 16:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support both suggestions of hike395. There should be an article titled Douglas fir (with or without a hyphen), but it should be for P. meziesii. Tdslk (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support moving Douglas-fir to Pseudotsuga. Oppose moving Pseudotsuga menziesii to Douglas fir. "Douglas-fir", with the hyphen, appears to be more common in reliable sources (as indexed by Google Scholar) than "Douglas fir", without the hyphen.[2] "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." (Please see WP:MOSNAME.) Also, we don't usually change article titles that have been stable with no compelling reason to do so. That does not exist for the latter move, in my opinion. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support (just in case anyone was really in doubt). There are far wider reliable sources than Google Scholar about a species as common as Douglas fir. This is not something that just has relevance within the scholarly scientific community, but is of relevance to conservation of the environment, commercial forestry, the construction industry and the celebration of Christmas, none of whose results show up in that Scholar search (which is heavily botany and genetics biased). Taking a wider view, the results show that in reliable sources, the unhyphenated version has an overwhelming lead over the hyphenated version. Even taking the Scholar results, many of those hyphenated hits are where Douglas fir is used as an adjective (Douglas-fir forests and Douglas-fir plantations are two obvious examples), and I think (I could be wrong) that there is a case that it should be hyphenated when used as an adjective, even though it is not normal to do so when used as a noun (as the article title would be). Skinsmoke (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment if that's the case, then it is probably the case that scientific organizations and institutions may have an evolved styleguide or two/ and that they should be consulted; scientific/academic publishing houses, for example, may have some. CANENGLISH for example has the old CP/CBC styleguide as did in the print days all the newspaper chains; now they use botcheckers LOL....I"m approaching this also from the "common reader" not the specialist academics, and feel that Douglas fir's primacy in normal (non-scientific) print isn't insignificant; if anything it begs the question "do academic/scientific styles distinguish in some way between the tree and the genus in the use of "Douglas fir"/"Douglas-fir". If not why not?? Not that I think there should be a new paradigm, but despite observance of scientific accuracy WP:COMMONAME should apply unless there's exceptions in WP:TITLE and so on that validate this; but what do you do a field, say tourism or literature or the media where "Douglas fir" IS the norm....would it not be original research, or an imposed style, to go against their sources and insist on the hyphen? MOS:HYPHEN doesn't answer this, but I've never understood the kill-the-hyphen thing, and my phone's spellchecker continues to break up normal compound words into two, so who I am to argue with "progress". I'm a pretty widely read person, and "Douglas-fir" looks downright odd - as does "Western redcedar"....Skookum1 (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, with Pseudotsuga menziesii moving to the unhyphenated Douglas fir. I am concerned that some of the 400+ incoming links to Douglas-fir may be intended to link to the genus. I did edit the most obvious cases where genus was intended (the other species of Pseudotsuga) prior to my initial move request, and the vast majority clearly intend to be about the species, but there may be a few incoming links that end up going to the wrong article. I can't check all the incoming links, but I suppose a hatnote should be sufficient.Plantdrew (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The hyphen is intended to indicate that Douglas firs are not "true firs" (in the genus Abies). In my opinion, it completely fails at it's intended purpose. The only people who know what the hyphen indicates are already aware that Douglas firs aren't "true firs". The hyphen convention is sometimes carried to ludicrous extremes (e.g. Mock-orange, False-plantain, which already have common names that indicate that they are actually not oranges or plantains). The hyphen convention is not widely supported by botanists. The US and Canadian governments share a list of quasi-official common names for plants which follows the hyphen convention, although I'm not aware of any governmental or botanical style guides that REQUIRE the hyphen. Nevertheless, governmental usage has given the hyphenated form a higher profile in web searches. In actual common usage, the unhyphenated form is far more popular.Plantdrew (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment "Douglas-fir", with the hyphen, is the correct form. Some databases:
http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?30191
http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=183426
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Tree&id=3357&lvl=3&p=mapview&p=has_linkout&p=blast_url&p=genome_blast&lin=f&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock
http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=200005380
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_1/pseudotsuga/menziesii.htm
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/psemenm/all.html Krasanen (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal All but one of the above are U.S. government websites, and likely all followed the lead (and likely via copy/paste) of the original promulgator of the erroneous hyphen, which I think might have been the USDA. As someone with long experience proofreading U.S. government publications, I can assure you that English language excellence is not a hiring criterion there, that people who write those publications are not doing exhaustive research to verify the validity of their work, and that countless incorrect terms and notions (including random capitalization of common nouns--oy vey!) are perpetuated daily in their publications. Many people in the U.S. government, including at least one former president, pronounce nuclear "new-kew-lur". That doesn't make it right. Some related reading: Argumentum ad populum. Eric talk 13:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Like Plantdrew mentioned above, the hyphen is used because Douglas-fir is not "true fir" (Abies). See e.g. the paragraph "What's in a Name?" here:
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/boise/learning/nature-science/?cid=fsed_009737
For the same reason Thuja plicata is western redcedar (not true cedar (Cedrus).Krasanen (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment That was apparently the reasoning of someone at USDA once upon a time, based on that person's fantasy of how hyphens are used in English, not based on how they are really used. You will not find that hyphen in any dictionary I've ever encountered. Here are just a few examples of non-hyphenated, multi-word common names that contain technically inaccurate terms in them: Spanish moss, prairie dog, sea lion, sea lettuce. Eric talk 18:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Given that User:Mike Cline performed the first half of this move, I will restart the discussion at Talk:Pseudotsuga menziesii, and make a new entry at WP:RM. —hike395 (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)