Talk:Metrosideros excelsa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Goal for this article?[edit]

So Christmas and December have come around again, alongside the flowering of our native "Christmas Tree". Having seen the recent featured article for the Australian "Banksia brownii" shrub (on Dec 24th), I thought that as a country we could do one better, and planned to nominate the Pohutukawa tree as a coming featured article. Sadly however, though this article is very high quality, I found that the entry for our Pohhutukawa just doesn't quite meet Wiki's criteria for nominating a featured article, so I held back making a nomination. The point to this story? I believe that with a rewrite to enhance/improve some of the language and style features of this article, alongside more infomation, citations and references, this could become a featured article on the main page, if not in this December then at least by Christmas Day 2007. Therefore I propose that the goal of editing this article should become the eventual attainment of "featured article status", something that can be achieved through dedicated casual editors, possibly through the members of groups like Project Crimson. The benefits of doing so are pretty clear: recognition for one of NZ's national icons, informing the world about this beautiful plant under threat, and of course, one up on the Aussies. So what you think? Too far-fetched, or definitly a possibility? Post in the talk page and after new years holiday I'll check back and email Project Crimson. (Please feel free to contact them yourself or keep on editing!)

P.S. Great job to the editors (especially Kahuroa) who have already made this article what it is today

Ca7ch 06:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Simpson 2005 (which I have) contains a wealth of really detailed information about Pōhutukawa and related trees - a really valuable source of info. I think we should also look at improving the articles about the Rāta trees as well - eg the Northern Rāta, as a 'strangler' is a very interesting tree. Might be worth working on improving the Metrosideros article at the same time. The main authors of that article might be able to provide improvements/and or other sources for this one. Kahuroa 08:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed[edit]

We _really_ need a citation for the claim that "San Francisco's Friends of the Urban Forest estimates that it is the third-most-commonly planted street tree in San Francisco over the last two decades." I've scoured the net for a reference but have been unable to find one. Maybe it appeared in the print media? Unsigned comment by Stuartyeates 09:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is long gone from our article, but FWIW I've come across the results of a tree survey which say something vaguely similar. It looked at 3,856 street trees planted in San Francisco from 1987 to 1996 by Friends of the Urban Forest, and found that pohutukawa were the second most commonly planted species. They were the most popular street tree at the beginning of that period, but had fallen from favour by 1992-1993. --Avenue (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a pohutukawa tree[edit]

I was in NZ and was wondering what type of this tree (third picture down with the boy inside the tree) An American's perspective on New Zealand[dead link] is. It was on Waiheke island outside of Auckland. On the Talk:New Zealand page several thought it wasn't a Kouri; another thought it was a macrocarpa; but then others concluded it was probably a Pohutukawa (Christmas-type tree flowering red in December right?). --Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone will be able to give you a definitive answer from the photo. The bark matches the bark of Pohutukawa, but while the leaves certainly match Pohutukawa in all the important details they are out of focus, which makes a 100% answer unlikely. Certainly the leaves seem to be the right shape, they are the leaves of a broadleafed tree rather than a conifer, but unless you have an overall shot of the tree or a sharp focus one of the leaves there's not much more that can be said. Nothing matches Kauri (a conifer rather than a broadleafed tree) which branches high above the ground, and the leaves of macrocarpa (also a conifer) are very distinctive, and nothing like the ones in the photo. Pohutukawa are also a common street tree in that part of NZ, especially in coastal and island places. Kahuroa (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kahuroa. There had been talk on the Talk:New Zealand page that it wasn't a kouri, possibly a macrocarpa, and most likely (?) a pohutukawa, so I changed the caption to reflect our best guess. Appreciate your comment.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deviation from WP:FLORA; brought here from the Help Desk[edit]

WP:FLORA says, "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". This tree has significant cultural importance in New Zealand, the only area where it normally grows; I think this qualifies as a valid exemption under "cultural use". This should be discussed at the talk page of the article instead of here; I will post this there. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept that "Pohutukawa" is a "common" English name. This move should not have been made without consensus here. I have moved it back pending discussion. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pohutukawa "passes" a Google test, although there are a lot of hits for things named after the plant (which I suppose demonstrates cultural importance). I have trouble accepting the form with the macron (Pōhutukawa) as an "English" common name. I don't have any good knowledge of the relative cultural importance of New Zealand plants, but with my limited knowledge, I'd be more inclined to see moving Agathis australis or Agathis to Kauri as appropriate. Is Pohutukawa up there with Kauri in cultural importance? Plantdrew (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who originally brought this up. The name Pōhutukawa is widely known throughout New Zealand, it is probably New Zealand's best known native tree (other than possibly Kauri). At the moment there are 86 wikilinks to Pōhutukawa spelling variations (55 to to Pōhutukawa, 24 to Pohutukawa, and 7 to Pohutakawa). There are 44 to Metrosideros excelsa (excluding those 3 redirects), though a quick look shows that most of them are piped links from Pōhutukawa (or a spelling variation). As for it's cultural significance though, the New Zealand Ministry of Culture and Heritage's New Zealand History Online site sums a lot of it up in the first paragraph of their article: "The pohutukawa tree (Metrosideros excelsa) with its crimson flower has become an established part of the New Zealand Christmas tradition. This iconic Kiwi Christmas tree, which often features on greeting cards and in poems and songs, has become an important symbol for New Zealanders at home and abroad." - Pohutukawa trees
The name is very common in New Zealand, and has obviously spread to British English too. I'm not so concerned with whether or not the macron is used, though it is now becoming standard with all Māori words used in New Zealand English to indicate pronunciation differences. I believe that's the reason "Pōhutukawa" is the most common wikilink to this page at the moment. It's now become common throughout Wikipedia for New Zealand related articles with names taken from Māori words as per MOS:TIES. TimofKingsland (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pōhutukawa has a greater influence on NZ culture than the Kauri, because whereas the Kauri is restricted to the Far North, pretty much every Kiwi has holidayed somewhere with Pōhutukawa, because they commonly line beaches and etc. There's also some significant examples ]in the http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/history-of-parliament/first-sitting-1854 grounds of parliament], etc. If you're in ny doubt of this, I suggest you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are many plants which are of acknowledged cultural importance in particular countries, and which have names in the non-English languages of that country which may well be used by English speakers and in English language publications produced in that country. For example, Indian editors frequently add one or more names in Indian languages to plant articles, and can demonstrate using sources (although too often they don't) that the Indian word is used by English-speakers in India and in Indian English-language publications. Can they argue that the article should be moved to the Indian name?
The macron is another issue. It demonstrates clearly that the word has not become truly English; English does not use macrons. What it shows is that the word is perceived as a Maori word used by New Zealand English speakers.
This plant is not like Onion, Apple, Wheat, Kiwi fruit, etc., i.e. major crops known worldwide. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't written or named according to English, but New Zealand English, as per WP:LANGVAR. New Zealand English has many loan words and nouns with macrons. The official New Zealand encyclopedia spells this with a macron. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A citation to the Māori Plant Uses Database has just been added, which lists several more names for this plant. That database has a lot of naming information for other New Zealand trees, some of which have been confounded with this one, and the names should be sorted out here before a decision is made about what the name of this page should be. Also, because this tree is a weed in other parts of the world, the names it is known by in those places need to be considered (e.g., I've just changed a citation to the original U.S. news report rather than the second-hand report that used a New Zealand translation). New Zealand Christmas Tree seems to be a strong contender, but even then, as Peter coxhead points out, this isn't a major crop plant known by a truly common name, and WP:FLORA seems preferable. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you add foreign-language plant names without marking them as foreign language? That's not helping us reach a consensus. The name New Zealand pohutukawa is referenced to only a primary source, when we're meant to be using secondary and tertiary. Poohutukawa is a transliteration of pōhutukawa by someone known for his position on transliteration of Maori to English. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pohutukawa has > 1,000,000 hits and Metrosideros excelsa has ~ 70,000. Both the current version and the 1966 version of the NZ official encyclopedia call it pohutukawa or pōhutukawa. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That this plant has "pohutukawa" as its main vernacular name isn't disputed (although there seem to be other vernacular names, including New Zealand Christmas tree). The main issues remains: is this name so well known that it constitutes the kind of exception to the general policy of WP:FLORA that is represented by major crop plants? I haven't yet seen any serious effort to address this issue. What makes this name exceptional? Peter coxhead (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FLORA says:
The guiding principle of this guideline is to follow usage in reliable sources. In the vast majority of cases, this will be the current scientific name. This is because the vast majority of plants are of academic interest only to botanists, and botanists almost invariably use scientific names in their published works. On the other hand, when a plant is of interest outside botany—for example because it has agricultural, horticultural or cultural importance—then a vernacular name may be more common.
What part of cultural importance has not been explained? For reference 'New Zealand Christmas tree' is mainly used outside of New Zealand (or local material with a tourist audience) and I've never seen the other names used in sources since WWII except to list them as synonyms. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the view from outside New Zealand is also important to Wikipedia. There are other species (at least M. kermadecensis and M. collina) also called pohutukawa, and it *is* relevant what this species is called in places where it has become a weed. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a contribution from another New Zealander - I would hazard a guess that almost every Kiwi would know pohutukawa, and know it by that name. Schwede66 22:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but do they, or do they include the small plants of the cultivar 'Tahiti' in their gardens as pohutukawa? Pohutukawa clearly doesn't apply to all the species in the genus Metrosideros, but it is used for several of them. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't grow well in New Zealand (which is too far south), so I'm guessing that very few of them would. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even where it does grow (e.g. Auckland), my experience would suggest we'd modify the name by including an adjective. That's certainly the case with Kermadec pohutukawa. Even with larger Metrosideros plants that could be more easily mistaken for Metrosideros excelsa, I think calling them pohutukawa would be considered a mistake, however understandable it might be, similar to confusing pohutukawa and rata trees for example.
New Zealand English does use macrons in words of Maori origin, at least in many formal contexts. Maori is no less an English word for sometimes being spelt Māori; likewise pohutukawa.
What the pohutukawa is called outside NZ could be relevant, if this had more widespread usage than "pohutukawa". Evidence of this would be a welcome addition to the debate. However I suspect it isn't the case. Even if it was, the cultural importance of pohutukawa in NZ would also need to be taken into account. --Avenue (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had the time to keep up with all of this, but I've just read through the discussion now. I genuinely believed this would be a non-controversial move, but I was obviously wrong. While the worldwide perspective is important, this particular tree has so much cultural significance in New Zealand as the "pōhutukawa" I didn't believe anyone who was familiar this would disagree (and I assumed most editors watching this page would be). I have to admit I wasn't familiar with WP:FLORA, but as Stuartyeates pointed out, "the guiding principle of this guideline is to follow usage in reliable sources". It's hard to know what an objective test would be for what name is most commonly used in reliable sources, but I've drawn up a little table to compare the three candidates that have arisen, p(ō/o)hutukawa (P), Metrosideros excelsa (Me), and New Zealand Christmas tree (NZCT), in terms of search results:

Source P* Me♦ NZCT+ Ratio P:Me
Google Books 20,800 6,460 170 3.220
Google Scholar 2,010 1,960 118 1.026
Google Web 745,000~ 80,600 497,000 9.243
Wikipedia search 95 33 8 2.879
Sources^ 6 7 1 0.857
Source Titles☨ 3 1 0 3.000
Source Mentions‡ 131 10 3 13.100
*pōhutukawa OR pohutukawa
♦Metrosideros excelsa
+"New Zealand Christmas Tree" OR "NZ Christmas Tree"
^How many sources in the current Metrosideros excelsa article mention the name?
☨How many article sources use the name in their title on WP?
‡How many times is the name used in all article sources?
~For some reason searching for just "pohutukawa" yields 1,050,000 results.

The last column is the ratio of p(ō/o)hutukawa to Metrosideros excelsa. Pōhutukawa is the most common name in nearly all these tests, failing only in a test that uses a very small sample (the 11 sources cited in the article). This small sample renders the bottom three stats a bit useless, but the others paint a pretty clear picture. As I mentioned much earlier in the discussion, most of the links to this article on WP point to pōhutukawa or a spelling variation (nearly twice as many as Metrosideros excelsa), and most of those linking to Metrosideros excelsa are piped from pōhutukawa.

The fact that sometimes people might mistakenly call other species pōhutukawa is a distraction, and completely irrelevant to the issue of what is the most common name of this species in reliable English language sources. The hatnote should be changed to "For the Kermadec Pōhutukawa, see Metrosideros kermadecensis", if it's even necessary. Anyone looking for pōhutukawa on Wikipedia will be looking for this tree, not the kermadec pōhutukawa or any other species.

Google's Ngram Viewer gives a pretty clear view of the history and of the three names' usage in the published English language. The last time Metrosideros excelsa was more popular than pohutukawa was the 1840s. And it's been a lot more popular for a long time. You would expect that just about every scientific text will at least mention the botanical name, and you can see this in the Google Scholar row of the table above (though some don't - other than in references). The fact that the name pōhutukawa appears to have so many more mentions than Metrosideros excelsa in the wider English language points to its enormous cultural significance to New Zealand. That's why it's the most commonly used name in reliable sources, and why the article title in Wikipedia should be changed. TimofKingsland (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know I've said a lot now, but I've got one more quick point. Google Trends is well known for being able to predict public interest in a subject relatively accurately. According to them, pohutukawa is searched for about 10 times more than New Zealand Christmas Tree, and about 20 times more than Metrosideros excelsa. New Zealand accounts for about 98% of the searches for both pohutukawa and New Zealand Christmas Tree, while there is insufficient search volume of Metrosideros excelsa to provide a regional breakdown. This doesn't amount to usage in reliable sources, but it shows the tree is of significant interest outside of botany, mostly to New Zealanders, and mostly under the name p(ō/o)hutukawa. There are far more New Zealanders that know this tree by the name pōhutukawa than people elsewhere (including botanists) who know it by any other name. It is not one of "the vast majority of plants [that] are of academic interest only to botanists", it is a tree that "is of interest outside botany [...] because it has [...] cultural importance" and the vernacular name pōhutukawa is more common in reliable sources. It seems the pōhutukawa has more than met the criteria given for using a common name in WP:FLORA. I'm not really sure how it could be argued another way. TimofKingsland (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very easily, in my view. This is not the New Zealand Wikipedia, but the international English Wikipedia. There's no way that this Maori origin name is comparable to the examples in WP:FLORA.
It's important not to "cherry pick" bits of WP:FLORA, but to consider it and other WP guidelines as a whole. Compromises have to be made. Americans would like Maize to be at "Corn". I could argue that Taxus baccata should be at "Yew" – it's of considerable cultural importance in England, and is always called by this name by non-botanists. But there are good reasons why these purely national views should not prevail. The same applies here. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your Yew and Corn examples are strawmen, because in both of those cases there is meaningful contention for the name. There is no such contention for pōhutukawa / Metrosideros excelsa. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not cherry picking bits of WP:FLORA, I'm highlighting the sections relevant to whether a common name or botanical name should be used. The only other relevant section, other than the one I and Stuartyeates pointed out, is "[s]cientific 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. These exceptions are determined on a case-by-case basis through discussion towards consensus." This is essentially a rewording of the earlier section in WP:FLORA that we quoted, and the points made in this section are already addressed in my previous comments. If there is any other material in WP:FLORA or elsewhere in the guidelines and policies that you think is relevant to whether the botanical or common name should be used for a plant article title, please bring it up. The fact that the examples used in WP:FLORA are the most obvious shows the editors' intentions to make their point clear; it does not say the plant must be as well known as those examples to qualify for a common name title.
I wouldn't profess to know the relative use of Taxus baccata vs. Yew or Corn vs. Maize in reliable English language sources. If the current names do not reflect their usage in these sources then someone knowledgeable on the issue should bring it up at their respective talk pages, but I imagine this has already been discussed and resolved there (at least with maize/corn). In both these cases the proposed alternatives have other articles associated with the name (see Yew and Corn (disambiguation)), and both names can refer to more than one species. As Stuartyeates pointed out, this ambiguity confounds the issue in a way does not apply with pōhutukawa, and makes comparing their usage on Ngram Viewer/Google Books/etc. almost futile. Regardless, the appropriateness of other article titles on Wikipedia is irrelevant to this discussion.
The determining factor here is which name is the most commonly used for this tree in reliable English language sources (WP:FLORA deliberately attracts attention to the phrase "follow usage in reliable sources" by making it the only bold text on the page). Look at the Ngram results, or any of the other measures I gave in the table above. The most commonly used name in reliable English language sources is pōhutukawa. This is because the tree is significantly more prominent in the field of New Zealand culture than botany. This is not the New Zealand Wikipedia, nor is it the Botanist's Wikipedia. It is the international English Wikipedia, and article titles should reflect usage in reliable English language sources. In this case, the most commonly used name is not the Latin one, but an English one. Yes, pōhutukawa was originally a Māori word, but it has been a part of the English language since 1832 (see the OED, or the less-detailed free version if you don't have a subscription). Regardless of whether the name is derived from Latin, Old English, Māori, Taíno (the source of "maize"), or any other language, the determining factor is which name is most commonly used in reliable English language sources. I have provided a lot of evidence that this is pōhutukawa. Does anyone have any evidence that another name is more common? TimofKingsland (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The determining factor here is which name is the most commonly used for this tree in reliable English language sources – it's not the determining factor; this is a common mis-reading of WP:COMMONNAME. It's a factor to be taken into account, along with others in WP:AT, including precision and consistency (italicized in the lead to WP:FLORA), and for this particular plant, whether the cultural use is sufficient to make an exception to the general rule that scientific names should be used. One point in bringing up the "Maize" and "Yew" examples is that editors from one English-speaking country naturally tend to want terms used in their ENGVAR used as article titles, but that this may not be appropriate in the English Wikipedia.
A second point from the "Yew" example is that it's not suitable as a title for an article on a single species because the form "adjective yew" is used to refer to different species, so it doesn't meet the precision requirement. As Sminthopsis84 pointed out, "Kermadec pohutukawa" is a name used for a different species of Metrosideros. Precision would then suggest that if the word "pohutukawa" is used in an article title then the article title for M. excelsa should be "Mainland pohutukawa" (without the macron; check the Ngrams with and without the macron). Peter coxhead (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another strawman!. There are less that 200 google hits for "Mainland pohutukawa". Stuartyeates (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that point about nationalism, Peter coxhead. I agree that national views about article titles should not prevail over what name is most commonly used in the English language, and particularly if the article relates to a species commonly found or used in many parts of the world, like corn and yew species. That's why I'm not trying to move maize to corn, even though my fellow Kiwis and I would never call it maize. Even though there's a strong argument to be made for using pōhutukawa according to the National varieties of English section of WP:AT, I'm not going to get into that for now. The point is that pōhutukawa is the most widely used name for this species in the English language, not just in New Zealand. The fact that most reliable sources about pōhutukawa are published in New Zealand is not at all surprising - it's very important in our culture, and, more importantly, it's endemic. But if we ignore any kind of national prejudice about what this species should be called, and look at the prevalence in all English language sources objectively, the vast majority call it pōhutukawa, and only a small minority call it anything else. The issue about the macron is a side issue to whether p(ō/o)hutukawa or Metrosideros excelsa should be the title of this article, and getting into that will take us off track. Let's stick to the main issue for now, and if we come to a consensus about p(ō/o)hutukawa, we can talk macrons then. I look forward to it, haha.

It's a fair point you made, Peter coxhead, the most common name is not the only determining factor - other factors must be weighed against this. You've linked to WP:AT to point out other factors mentioned there. For the sake of clarity, those listed there are recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. The only other relevant material at WP:AT (apart from descriptions of these factors) is the National varieties of English section. For all the reasons mentioned earlier, pōhutukawa is obviously both the most recognisable and natural, and conciseness isn't an issue here. But you've highlighted precision and consistency, so I'll address those.

In terms of precision, you've given the example of how *adjective* yew is used to name other related species, and compared it with Kermadec pōhutukawa. The major difference between yew and pōhutukawa is that "pōhutukawa" (without an adjective) refers specifically to Metrosideros excelsa (OED definition: "A New Zealand evergreen tree, Metrosideros excelsa (family Myrtaceae), which in December and January bears clusters of red flowers with projecting stamens"). By contrast, "yew" can be used to describe any tree of its genus (OED definition: "A tree of the genus Taxus (N.O. Coniferæ) widely distributed in the North Temperate Zone, esp. T. baccata, the common yew of Europe and Asia"). According to the OED the noun "yew" can be also used as the name for a bow made from yew wood, and can even be applied more generally to some flowering plants. The point is that while "yew" is an imprecise name, "pōhutukawa" is precise, and doesn't refer to other species (or anything else). The only contender to this is Metrosideros kermadecensis, a tree relatively recently introduced from a small group of essentially uninhabited islands, because (despite having the vernacular name of Kermadec pōhutukawa) it could sometimes be causally referred to as simply pōhutukawa by someone either misidentifying the species, or simply ignoring the difference for brevity. But saying that this makes "pōhutukawa" imprecise is a bit like saying "tomato" is imprecise because Solanum chippendalei, commonly called the bush tomato, could sometimes referred to as tomatoes in some contexts. Some reliable sources might say "there are x tomato species endemic to Australia", but no reliable source would ever refer to Solanum chippendalei as "a tomato" without qualifying it in some way, and this is what makes the name "tomato" for Solanum lycopersicum precise. The same applies with the Kermadec pōhutukawa, it would never be called "pōhutukawa" in reliable sources, except in contexts such as "there are two pōhutukawa species endemic to the New Zealand biological region". And it would only be in these contexts that an adjective would ever be applied to "pōhutukawa" (such as common, mainland, New Zealand, etc.) to differentiate it from the Kermadec pōhutukawa, just as when discussing a bush tomato alongside a common tomato one might be inclined to use an adjective for the common tomato (as I just did). That is the reason adjectives used with pōhutukawa are extremely rare (as Stuartyeates pointed out); other than in specific circumstances there is no use for one. The word pōhutukawa only refers to only one species, which makes it precise.

The only other factor then is consistency. This is determined by examining the pattern used by other articles about similar topics. In this case the topic is a plant, and in other plant article titles either the botanical or vernacular name is used, though in most cases this is the botanical name. The guidelines for which of these is used are given in WP:FLORA (where precision and consistency have been italicised, as Peter coxhead pointed out). As they say there, the consistency principle leads "further support to the use of scientific names, and [...] leads to standardisation on certain orthographic points." But they have also made clear when not to use scientific names. This is when the prevalence of an unambiguous vernacular name in reliable English language sources exceeds that of the botanical name. As all the other factors have been addressed, this becomes the only remaining determining factor - one I have already addressed in detail in my previous comments. Or is there some other factor I've missed that needs to be taken into consideration? TimofKingsland (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your very detailed and careful comments. It seems to me that we are clear on the issues, and clear where we differ. One which is factual, and so may be capable of resolution, is whether the name "pohutukawa" is sufficiently unambiguous to meet the precision requirement. This is still not clear to me. I'm not impressed by dictionaries or other popular non-scientifically oriented sources. These regularly use common names with abandon. Do reliable sources, such as field guides and scientific papers which include English names, consider it necessary to qualify "pohutukawa"? Sources linked in the article, such as this, label the species "mainland pohutukawa". What do recent New Zealand field guides do? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those would be relevant, true, but your perspective still seems somewhat blinkered to me. Pohutukawa are important for more than just scientific reasons, and reliable sources from other subject areas would also be relevant, whether they impress you personally or not.
Having said that, here's one field guide example: Dawson and Lucas (2000), Nature guide to the New Zealand forest. They have an entry for pohutukawa (with no macron) on page 92. In the text, they mention it being called the New Zealand Christmas tree, but apart from that they simply call it pohutukawa throughout. They do mention Metrosideros being widespread through the Pacific. --Avenue (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only physical NZ tree guide I've got is Salmon, J. T., The Native Trees of New Zealand (rev. ed.) (1986). Hardly a recent source, but M. excelsa is called pohutukawa, and M. kermadecensis is called Kermadec pohutukawa in all relevant sections (mostly pp. 152-55). But then online there's A Photographic Guide to Trees of New Zealand (2002), which Google's snippet view shows uses the name pohutukawa for M. excelsa. And then there's all the different articles in academic journals which use pohutukawa as the common name (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]). And then there's other scientific texts published about the tree that use pohutukawa (e.g. [8] [9] [10]). And then there's websites published by New Zealand's Ministry for Culture and Heritage (e.g. [11] [12]).
Those examples haven't been cherry picked, they're just the first reliable sources I found, other than the article Peter coxhead brought up Low outcrossing rates and shift in pollinators in New Zealand pohutukawa (Metrosideros excelsa; Myrtaceae). But have a look at the full text of that article. While it does say "New Zealand pohutukawa" in the title and at the start of the abstract, the species is simply called pohutukawa throughout the article, and this is given as the common name for the species in the text: "Metrosideros excelsa Sol. ex Gaertn. (pohutukawa) is a distinctive, multistemmed tree of rocky coastlines endemic to New Zealand". I presume, given that the article was published in the American Journal of Botany that this redundant "New Zealand" was simply added to the title and abstract to draw attention to the fact they were publishing an article about a New Zealand species, which I'm guessing is quite a rare event. None of the other reliable sources I just mentioned used any kind of adjective to qualify pohutukawa; the name refers to only one species so it's unnecessary. And as I pointed out earlier in the discussion, which I think is a major point that might have been overlooked, one of these sources, Pohutukawa and Biodiversity: Conservation Advisory Science Notes No. 100 published by the Department of Conservation, doesn't even bother to use the botanical name at all, it only appears in the references. For a scientific text to omit a botanical name completely is very rare, and would only be done if there was absolute certainty about the identification of the species by its common name. If we could find a reliable source using p(ō/o)hutukawa without an adjective to refer to some other species there might be some point of contention here, but I'm sure one can't be found. How many reliable sources do we need before it becomes clear that p(ō/o)hutukawa is the common name for this species, and only refers to this species? We've got 15 so far (including Avenue's contribution), and Peter coxhead's contribution the AJB article almost counts as a 16th. As Avenue pointed out, this tree gets discussed in other disciplines too, which I haven't even gone into here. And then there's the online databases, but how much evidence do you need? TimofKingsland (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC) [edited by TimofKingsland 14:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)][reply]
I just realised you mentioned a different source Peter coxhead. Not sure how I got that confused, as you pointed out they called it mainland pohutukawa not New Zealand pohutukawa. But Project Crimson, the charity who released the fact sheet you actually mentioned don't bother using "mainland" when linking to the fact sheet. They also sell a much more scientific book through their website, Pohutukawa: Ecology, Establishment, Growth and Management, about M. excelsa exclusively (available free online here). I'm not sure why Project Crimson called the pōhutukawa a "Mainland Pohutukawa" in their fact sheet, but neither Pohutukawa: Ecology, Establishment, Growth and Management, nor any of the other texts I've mentioned feel the need to qualify pōhutukawa. The name only refers to one species. TimofKingsland (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been away from Wikipedia for a bit, which is why I've been slow in replying. So it's agreed that this species is generally simply called "pohutukawa", although it can much less commonly be called "mainland pohutukawa" and the other species is called "Kermadec pohutukawa". Can you point me to example(s) in the English Wikipedia where pairs of vernacular titles like "A" and the qualified "B A" are used? I looked at bird articles, because they are almost entirely at English names, but couldn't find any such examples. Even when the names seem to me highly artificial, like Eurasian Jay (which I've never heard called anything but "Jay" in Britain) names which fully differentiate are used. It can't be an appeal to COMMONNAME because as this ngram shows, "Eurasian Jay" is very uncommon (note that I'm not comparing it directly to "Jay" here, because this may be part of other names, just using it to show how rare is the title used in this Wikipedia). So it does seem to me that if there were a consensus that the article should not be at the scientific name (a move I continue to oppose), then it should be at "Mainland pohutukawa" on the grounds of precision and by analogy with areas of the English Wikipedia in which vernacular names are generally used as article titles. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The jay is yet another irrelevant example, as the name "jay" refers to a large number of species in the Corvidae family (also see OED definition). The title "Jay" is needed and used to discuss and list the many species commonly called "jay", so the article title for Garrulus glandarius must be different to "jay" for technical reasons too. This ambiguity and the technical issue aren't relevant to "pōhutukawa", a name that (as I keep pointing out) only refers to one species. Regardless, Peter coxhead wants an example of article titles where name refers to one species and *adjective* name refers to others. It seems a bit like you keep shifting the goalposts on us, but I'll oblige. To use a plant example I gave before, tomato is the title for Solanum lycopersicum, while bush tomato is the title for an article on a number of Solanum species native to Australia. Then *adjective* tomato is used for any number of varieties and cultivars of S. lycopersicum (eg. 1 2 3 4 5, etc.), and is used for a number of unrelated articles as well. And to give a more relevant animal example than "jay", we have the koala article alongside the giant koala and riversleigh rainforest koala articles (and several unrelated articles).
This point isn't relevant to this argument anyway because the Kermadec pōhutukawa article is called Metrosideros kermadecensis, and no one is proposing to move that article. There are plenty of examples of plant article titles using the species' vernacular name alongside articles about lesser-known related species using their scientific names. That's the parallel with this situation, not the one Peter coxhead described, and is so common throughout the English WP that I'm sure we don't need to find examples (other than the tomato/Solanum chippendalei one I pointed out earlier). While the tomato plant is called "garden tomato" in some reliable sources (e.g. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]), and there are related species commonly called bush tomato or currant tomato (Solanum pimpinellifolium), this does not mean the name "tomato" is imprecise. Neither do the reliable sources calling a koala an "Australian koala" (e.g. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]) make the name "koala" imprecise (nor do the giant koala and riversleigh rainforest koala articles). Without an adjective, tomato, koala, and pōhutukawa only refer to a single species. Precision must be balanced against conciseness (see WP:CONCISE), and adding a redundant adjective such as garden, Australian, mainland, or New Zealand to one of these names makes it no more precise, but certainly less concise. These names are also less natural and arguably less recognisable, so they fail on 3 of the 5 principles at WP:CRITERIA, while adding no precision. That's why koala isn't called Australian koala, and tomato isn't called garden tomato, nor should pōhutukawa be called mainland pōhutukawa or New Zealand pōhutukawa. That and the unqualified names are more prevalent in both common usage and reliable sources, as again is the case with pōhutukawa.
I'm interested on what grounds you continue to oppose the move more generally, Peter coxhead. Is it based on personal preference, or is it based on WP guidelines and principles? If it's WP guidelines and principles, please direct us to them. We've already addressed everything relevant in WP:TITLE and WP:FLORA, unless there's some section we're ignoring that you'd like to bring up. TimofKingsland (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another point that editors outside NZ are probably not aware of is that the South Island of New Zealand is often colloquially called the "mainland" in New Zealand due to its larger geographical area (see the South Island article). If many Kiwis were looking for the pōhutukawa page and arrived at a page called "mainland pōhutukawa", many would likely initially wonder if this was a separate South Island species. Using the adjective "mainland" doesn't make the name any more specific, and it could actually make the title more ambiguous. Meanwhile "New Zealand" is entirely redundant, because the Kermadec Islands are a part of New Zealand. But I'm still interested in the answer to my earlier question, Peter coxhead. TimofKingsland (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was bemused by the term "mainland pohutukawa" because it doesn't grow in the south island. This would perhaps be the worst possible term to name the article.-gadfium 08:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TimofKingsland: I was one of the members of WP:PLANTS who worked on WP:FLORA both before and after it moved to its current title. So I naturally have an opinion on what it was intended to mean. Scientific names should be the norm; vernacular names should be genuinely exceptional, like the examples given. Accepting that "pohutukawa" is an exception drives a huge wedge through the policy. However, this isn't worth discussing any longer; we disagree and there's nothing more to be said. (I will try to get the wording clarified after this discussion ends).

@gadfium: Whether or not "mainland pohutukawa" is a bad name isn't relevant; it's the only name that seems to have been used by the few sources that distinguish the two species by using different vernacular names. Wikipedia reports, it doesn't judge. The only issue is whether "pohutukawa" meets the precision test. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: I'm trying to work towards a consensus - for that to happen we need to be clear where we disagree, which is the reason I asked. From what I understand, it's because you believe that scientific names should be almost universal for plant articles, with common names only used in truly exceptional circumstances (on a par with the examples at WP:FLORA). Regardless of the intentions behind the wording of WP:FLORA, what you're describing is certainly not how it's written at the moment, and inconsistent with the long standing policy WP:TITLE. There's no mention of common names needing to be exceptional examples in WP:FLORA, only that the plant "is of interest outside botany", and is "more prominent in some other field than in botany" to the degree that the vernacular name is more prevalent in reliable sources (and that the vernacular name is precise). Changing the wording of WP:FLORA so that there was some requirement for a precise vernacular name to be "genuinely exceptional" even if it was substantially more common in reliable sources is an edit I would be opposed to, as it is contradictory to much of WP:TITLE, and similar naming guidelines such as WP:FAUNA. However I realise this isn't the place to discuss what WP:FLORA should say, we can discuss it at the WP:FLORA talk page if you believe it warrants a change. Until then this discussion can only refer to WP:TITLE and WP:FLORA as they stand, and I don't see how using pōhutukawa, by far the most widely used name for the species in reliable sources, "drives a huge wedge through the policy" as it stands. Pōhutukawa is not as well known internationally as kiwifruit (one of the examples you gave earlier of a major crop known worldwide). But it does receive about 12% of the searches as kiwifruit does, and is hardly some obscure plant known mostly to botanists. It is a very well known tree in the field of New Zealand culture, a field you may not be familiar with, but is nonetheless of interest to WP.
Whether or not "mainland pohutukawa" is a bad name is relevant, because we are supposed to use common sense. Common sense tells us that if the "mainland" adds ambiguity for the ~98% of readers who look up the pōhutukawa online, it makes the name less precise. That aside, "mainland pohutukawa" is also less concise, natural, prevalent, and recognisable than pōhutukawa. The idea that the article should be called "mainland pohutukawa" to make it consistent with bird articles such as Eurasian Jay ignores the fact that "jay" refers to many species, and that WP:FAUNA has special guidelines for the names of bird articles - that they use "common names published by the International Ornithological Congress at the World Bird Names database." Pōhutukawa/Metrosideros kermadecensis is consistent with more relevant examples, such as tomato/Solanum chippendalei/Solanum pimpinellifolium. And I'm sure we've established that pōhutukawa is a precise name (I can't imagine what further evidence you would want, and I've yet to see it refer to anything else in a reliable source).
I'm still interested if there is any policy or guideline you can point us to that would make Metrosideros excelsa a more appropriate name than pōhutukawa. We have discussed both the spirit and the letter of everything relevant in WP:TITLE and WP:FLORA as they stand (regardless of your opinions on WP:FLORA's original intentions). These policies, guidelines, and plain common sense tell us that if pōhutukawa is the most prevalent name in reliable sources and the English language in general, and is the best known name amongst ~98% of the readers of the page, that this should be the name we use on the English WP. As WP:TITLE says, "[t]he choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." How does using Metrosideros excelsa instead of pōhutukawa put the interest of readers and the general audience over those of editors and specialists?. You are the only editor who has voiced any opposition to this move for nearly 2 weeks now, and I'd prefer to reach a consensus than simply discount the opinions of an editor who is obviously knowledgeable on the issue. If there is a section of any guideline or policy that opposes this move please point it out, it would be very helpful to the discussion. Other editors are obviously welcome to contribute too. TimofKingsland (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've shown you repeatedly that this statement if pōhutukawa is the most prevalent name in reliable sources and the English language in general, and is the best known name amongst ~98% of the readers of the page, that this should be the name we use on the English WP is simply not correct according to WP policies (apart from the question of how you can possibly know that ~98% of the readers of the page consider this the best known name). This is a classic error in the use of WP:AT. I'm sorry that my explanation of the relevance of Eurasian Jay wasn't as clear as it could have been – the point is that virtually no-one ever uses this name. In those English-speaking countries where the bird occurs, I'm sure that ~98% of people call the bird just "Jay" and all my British bird books do the same. I accept that the use of bold in the lead of WP:FLORA supports the argument that COMMONNAME trumps PRECISION, but this is just an error in the lead.
What needs to be shown to move a plant article from the default scientific name to the vernacular name is all of these – any one is not sufficient:
  1. the vernacular name is the most common in reliable English language sources – this case has been made, and I do not dispute it
  2. the vernacular name is sufficiently precise, ideally as precise as the scientific name – I'm still not totally convinced of this, but with an appropriate hatnote it's probably acceptable, although I would prefer a fully differentiated vernacular name (the Eurasian Jay example shows that this name does not have to be as commonly used as the non-differentiated name)
  3. the plant's agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use is sufficient to make it an exception, as is the case for the examples given in WP:FLORA ("e.g. rose, apple, watermelon") – this I simply don't accept (in an international encyclopedia) and we're not going to agree, I think.
Peter coxhead (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify what Peter said ("I accept that the use of bold in the lead of WP:FLORA supports the argument that COMMONNAME trumps PRECISION, but this is just an error in the lead."), if I understand his words correctly: the 'error' is not in the rest of FLORA, just in the lead, and that it would be also be an error to read the lead, which is meant to impart a kind of summary of the whole, without taking into account the whole. (If I have misread your words, Peter, then please strike, as my aim is to clarify not confuse.)
I would guess that many active FLORA editors have grown weary of the legion attacks, often one-offs by themselves, by editors unwittingly making the same, or very similar arguments as ones made before. This isn't an attack on the intent of Tim's and other's impassioned arguments, which are made well and in good faith, ultimately which though, to me, are not persuasive. And Tim you are welcome, of course, to bring your concerns to the Project Plants discussion page. I will, however, assure you that many editors, myself included, agree with the Peter, including that this example would indeed drive a terrible wedge, possibly big enough to make the policy incomprehensible. Correcting the lead to better support the whole, as it was and is intended to do, is the proper remedy. I don't mean to suggest that one editor speaks for all, but Peter's arguments made here do actually hold with the vast majority editors active in WikiProject Plants. Hamamelis (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter coxhead: Fair point, I should have worded that better. I don't know that it is the best known name amongst ~98% of the readers of the page, I know that it's by far and away the best known name amongst New Zealanders, who make up ~98% of the Google search volume for the pōhutukawa. I'm just assuming that the geographical make-up of Google searches relatively accurately reflects the make-up of visitors to a corresponding Wikipedia article that consistently comes up as the top search result, such as this one ([23] [24] [25] [26]). If you think this is too much to assume, I'm happy to withdraw the claim, it's not very important to this argument. But I'm sure you'll accept that the geographical breakdown of Google searches is probably pretty similar to that of corresponding Wikipedia articles. I don't know if there's a way to verify this, but I don't think we need to.
I understand and accept that there is more to the situation than just the statement you quoted of mine, and other editors and I have tried to address these other issues. I'm not sure how this is a classic error in the use of WP:AT though; you mentioned that this is simply not correct according to WP policies, but could you point me to them? How I have interpreted WP:TITLE is a very obvious interpretation (and the only interpretation I can make), so if it is incorrect surely this will be addressed elsewhere. And I understand your point about the jay, it's just that in the case of birds there is a specific guideline where editors have reached a consensus that they will follow a particular standardised common name list, so that list determines bird article titles. While you and other British people may call the Eurasian Jay a "jay", Floridians may equally call a Florida Scrub Jay a "jay", and so there needs to be some system to differentiate them on Wikipedia. The editors who wrote WP:FAUNA decided that this would be the World Bird Names database. There is no such agreed database for plant or tree common names, and there are no Kermadec Islanders (other than a few NZ conservation volunteers) to call a Kermadec pōhutukawa a pōhutukawa so the situation isn't comparable. Meanwhile the name "jay" is used for an article about a group of species, something that again is not comparable with this situation. Rather than using ambiguous bird articles as examples, with their own very specific guidelines, we should look at plant examples, such as tomato/Solanum chippendalei/Solanum pimpinellifolium. There's no need to call a tomato a "garden tomato" despite the existence of "garden tomato" in reliable sources and the existence of lesser known species, such as the bush tomato and currant tomato. Tomato is sufficient for the vast majority of reliable sources, and pōhutukawa is the same. Let's not forget WP:CONCISE: "The basic goal of conciseness is balancing brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic in a way the average person searching for it will recognize [...] [Use] the most concise title to fully identify the subject." Not only does your preference for a redundant qualifier contradict this, it would have to be an ambiguous qualifier or an artificial qualifier invented by WP editors rather than taken from reliable sources. Both "New Zealand" and "mainland" (the only two qualifiers ever used in reliable sources) are ambiguous for reasons already discussed.
As for whether the cultural importance of pōhutukawa is sufficient to warrant its vernacular name, WP:FLORA says that once the other criteria you mentioned have been fulfilled, this is determined by whether the vernacular name is "more prominent in some other field than in botany". It also says to "follow usage in reliable sources [...] The vast majority of plants are of academic interest only to botanists, and botanists almost invariably use scientific names in their published works. On the other hand, when a plant is of interest outside botany—for example because it has agricultural, horticultural or cultural importance—then a vernacular name may be more common." I can't see anything else in WP:FLORA relevant to this once the other conditions have been met, so it comes down to whether the tree is more prominent in a field other than botany, and whether the vernacular name is more common in reliable sources than the botanical one. We've already established the latter point well, so it comes down to whether the tree is "more prominent in some other field than in botany". I reckon you're probably a lot more knowledgeable about botany than me, while I'm probably a lot more knowledgeable about New Zealand culture than you. Hopefully we can agree on that. What I assume is that this tree is not of particular interest or prominence in the field of botany, but correct me if I'm wrong - this isn't my speciality. What I (and other New Zealand editors) can tell you is that this tree is very prominent in the field of New Zealand culture. If you don't take our word for it, maybe you can take the NZ Ministry for Culture and Heritage's: "The pohutukawa tree (Metrosideros excelsa) with its crimson flower has become an established part of the New Zealand Christmas tradition. This iconic Kiwi Christmas tree, which often features on greeting cards and in poems and songs, has become an important symbol for New Zealanders at home and abroad.". This is probably the most reliable internet source on the importance of pōhutukawa to the field of New Zealand culture, other than Te Ara, the official encyclopedia of New Zealand, which also calls the tree "iconic".[27] I'm sure no editors will be able to find a reliable source saying the pōhutukawa is anything like "iconic" in the field of botany. If you won't take the word of either New Zealand editors or the most reliable sources I can give you on the issue, then the only way to prove it to you is by proving that p(ō/o)hutukawa is more prevalent in reliable sources than Metrosideros excelsa, something I have already done. If that doesn't convince you either, I don't know what else you're looking for to determine this. If there's no evidence that could possibly be presented that would change your mind then I can accept that your mind will never change, but if there is, please let me know what kind of evidence it would be. The same applies for the precision argument.
@Hamamelis: Thanks for your input. I'm certainly not proposing to use pōhutukawa as an example in the WP:FLORA guideline page, that would make the policy confusing for most editors. I'm arguing that based on WP:TITLE and WP:FLORA as they stand, pōhutukawa more than meets the requirements. We can talk about possible future changes to WP:FLORA there, rather than speculate here. If these changes are proposed, I would appreciate it if you could please leave a note on my talk page so I can get involved in the discussion. My opinion on the changes aren't set in stone, I'd like to hear what the other editors have to say. I understand that you find our arguments about the move to pōhutukawa unpersuasive. Why is that? Have we not fulfilled some portion of the relevant policies and guidelines, and if so which? The argument that this does not take into account "the whole" suggests that there are parts of the policies and guidelines that advise against this move, but I can't find them anywhere. I'm sure you're aware that much of WP:TITLE supports my argument, so I'm genuinely curious what parts in WP:TITLE, WP:FLORA, or any other relevant guidelines or policies advise against this move. Please point me to the relevant material. This includes any other editors of course. TimofKingsland (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example of its cultural use: the floral emblem of New Zealand's largest city. The word 'iconic' is much overused and debased, but in the case of the pōhutukawa it's appropriate. Pōhutukawa is the correct place for this article. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 March 2014[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: no consensus, so by default the page is not moved.
There was no agreement on either of the two principles advanced here: a) that "Pohutukawa " is the WP:COMMONNAME, or b) that the scientific name should be used. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metrosideros excelsa → Pohutukawa – There is a long thread on the Talk:Metrosideros excelsa which didn't reach a consensus. This is an attempt to summarise the main points This is a tree known by a number of names, including Pōhutukawa, Pohutukawa, Metrosideros excelsa, New Zealand Christmas Tree...; all of these are currently links to the same article. The New Zealand public knows the tree as Pohutukawa and the google hits reflect this, winning hands-down on any comparison. Pohutukawa reflects the an older orthography in the Māori language; Pōhutukawa reflects the new orthography for the Māori language, as currently promulgated by the official Māori Language Commission and taught in all schools. Pohutukawa is also used by those lacking the technical capability of representing macrons (i.e. major New Zealand news papers, etc.). Metrosideros excelsa is the name for the tree in binomial nomenclature, which is used by scientists and promulgated by the scientific community. In some contexts Metrosideros excelsa is more specific than Pohutukawa, because there are some very closely related species from offshore islands such as Metrosideros kermadecensis, in since both have been commercially hybridised and crossed (all of these species interbreed readily), only botanical experts can tell these part, so they not widely used.

Astute readers may notice that I was advocating for Pōhutukawa in the Talk:Metrosideros excelsa thread; I have come to see that outside of a relatively few (but very authoritative sources) Pohutukawa is the WP:COMMONNAME. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Stuartyeates (talk) 07:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Support COMMONNAME is what makes this a very clear candidate for a move. Schwede66 08:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
The notability of this species of substantial trees, arises, in the overwhelming majority from Aotearoa/New Zealand entirely–reliable and, more so, notable sources, some sources notable for articles in their own rights, too. This major notability of this species from Aotearoa/New Zealand dictates the overwhelming context of its naming decisions. A tiny minority of notability derives from international sources from outside Aotearoa/New Zealand, which have no chance, numerically or otherwise, of usurping the vast majority of notability from Aotearoa/New Zealand. IMHO one of the correct and in context comparisons is cabbage which grows naturally in its original species forms, Brassica oleracea (giving rise to its many further varieties), in Britain and western Europe. Cabbage, the common name, has huge notability in English from many multi-national sources, especially from British and western European English–language sources, and so huge that it has much more notability again than the major notability of Pohutukawa, the vast majority of which, as said, comes from Aotearoa/New Zealand sources. Brassica oleracea has been bred countless times into endless varieties, hybrids, back crosses to other related species and between its many varieties, and so on. It would be quaint to treat Brassica oleracea like a long dead twee little stamp collection by creating a mechanistic/atomistic–thinking filing–cabinet–like system of articles for each and every source-able variety and cross-breed—oh very nice from a control-freak stamp collecting point of view, but in reality terribly impractical, unrealistic and unscientific. Brassica oleracea has tremendously dynamic and ongoing breeding in endless varieties, breeds, forms and even merely for brand names, continuing into the future; cabbage per se does in summary, disambiguate all of them very well. In other words, Brassica oleracea covers all the varieties and can extend to alluding to and wiki-linking to other species with which it is crossed. As the majority of sources for notability of Brassica oleracea have far greater notability by its most common name in the English language of cabbage, it has that article title. Context has overriding meaning and import, in accord with the relevant most significant WP policies. The Aotearoa/New Zealand context of the overwhelming majority of notability for this species of trees, based on surveying reliable sources internationally, overwhelmingly determines the article name Pohutukawa, as by far the most notable, and according to the WP common names policy. New Zealand English must get used for the article variety of English, also. Anything other than those outcomes, IMHO amounts to special pleading in extremis for England–English language bigotry. (Don’t ask me to mince words. And i’m not referring to anybody in particular. I’m tired of one-eyed BS in general. Quotation: "In a land of the blind a one-eyed man is king"—by ???. Many of us, we aren’t blind, we just like to avoid the 'one-eyed miniature monsters'.) In an another imaginary–extreme editors’ consensus which i can’t imagine as a reality nor any need for, two articles could happen, one the major article for Pohutukawa including all the major notability, cultural, national and other significance, and a second insignificant stub for the minor–notable botanical–scientific name Metrosideros excelsa. I grew up with and know some of the Pohutukawa trees which have been long planted in suburban Australia. All the best. (eg.)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • Oppose - While I empathise strongly with the proposal - and I do have a mature Pohutakawa in my garden - this goes against the widely accepted usage in Wikipedia that wild plants in articles are named using their systematic binomial name. except in certain unusual case such as monotypic species. I see no reason why this species article shouldn't follow the same convention. If we follow the proposal then we could end up with Cordyline australis re-named to Cabbage Tree, Sophora microphylla renamed as Kowhai etc. and yet both these species are arguably equally emblematic in New Zealand as Pohutakawa. Opening the flood gates to common name in Botany is a recipe for disaster since there is no common agreement about plant common names, even within a single country. I sympathise, but logic says this is highly undesirable.  Velella  Velella Talk   10:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(a) This is not a 'wild plant,' there are several cultivars (b) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) has an entire section on confusing common name with WP:COMMONNAME, which is what you appear to be doing here. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; the scientific name is more appropriate here. Hesperian 11:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; would be a bad precedent likely to increase the already significant problem that comes about because plants all over the world are known in a particular region by one common name, which people want to change the page name to, but there are almost invariably other regions where a different common name predominates. Scientific names make the best page names for plants. (There are also other species called pōhutukawa.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the reasons given by Hesperian and Sminthopsis84. Also by no stretch of the imagination can "pohutakawa" be considered the common English name worldwide. The New Zealand common name, yes, but this isn't the New Zealand Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you perhaps have any hard figures to back that up? Maybe something akin to the google hit numbers in the table compiled by User:TimofKingsland? Stuartyeates (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, clearly the COMMONNAME for the plant. NZ usage is predominant both in sources and among likely readers. I can sympathise with botany-focussed editors who are worried about this setting a precedent they are uncomfortable with, but we should take a wider view of what is best for this article. --Avenue (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - no it is not clearly the common name. This is the first time I've noticed its NZ native name - admitted I've never been near NZ, but I've seen it several times in my travels. Whenever I've talked about it to anyone it's been called Metrosideros or M. excelsa. In Wikipedia where even the common oak of England is called by its botanic name, there is no particular need to make this exception. Imc (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a New Zealander, I have never heard it called by Metrosideros or M. excelsa, just Pohutukawa. Ollieinc (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of countries / regions with their trees called 'oak trees,' these local populations rightly feel a connection to them and so there is contention for the name 'Oak'. There is only one species native to populationed lands called 'Pohutukawa'. There is no contention for the name 'Pohutukawa' (or the name 'Pōhutukawa'). Stuartyeates (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:WORLDVIEW. 'Pōhutukawa' is the correct spelling, but 'Pohutukawa' is at least recognisable. Whichever spelling is eventually chosen, the word is clear and unambiguous in NZ English, and people searching for its Latin name will be redirected to the article and perhaps even learn something. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - all plants should be at scientific names - unambiguous and exact. Never heard the name 'Pohutukawa' used in oz, so common name not clear. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 4 April 2014 (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.

As a tree for planting in sidewalks and yards: Problem with roots[edit]

The article currently states:

In coastal California, it is a popular street and lawn tree, but has caused concern in San Francisco where its root systems are blamed for destroying sewer lines and sidewalks.

The article gives an authoritative reference from 2010. I live near San Francisco. For new plantings, one possibility is that a cultivar exists which doesn't have this problem; but the article doesn't mention any. I took a quick search of the article from 2010 in New Zealand Garden Journal, without finding any useful info on this point. If someone can provide such info, some readers might find it useful. Oaklandguy (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the answer is frequent pruning?[edit]

I just found an article in a San Francisco newspaper. According to this article, this tree should be frequently pruned. If this is done, roots are much less of a problem; also, the pruning has other advantages. Oaklandguy (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a source saying "Root Damage Potential Rated as Moderate."[edit]

Source is Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute Oaklandguy (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Metrosideros excelsa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to common macron inclusion.[edit]

I am about to change the word pohutukawa to pōhutukawa throughout the article as that is the original te reo Māori word for this tree that had its common spelling changed to pohutukawa, but pōhutukawa is now most-commonly used, by, for example: the Department of Conservation (New Zealand) here, Project Crimson here, Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand here, Forest & Bird [28], NZ Herald here, Stuff (company) here Radio New Zealand here and TVNZ here. Te reo Māori place names have macrons on Wikipedia, and flora and fauna are now being changed, for example: kōwhai, tūī, kererū, kōkako and wētā. E James Bowman (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit? Seeds?[edit]

Every article about other plants includes a section on the fruit or seed, method of propagation. Why not this one? 74.127.201.139 (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metrosideros_excelsa&oldid=1207123465"