Talk:Sequoia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sequoia article.
Article policies
Good article Sequoia was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Sequoia is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Assessment

whoever did first assessment on importance doesnt seem to have left any notes. It seems this page deserves at least a Mid assessment. Architectsf 23:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I rarely check my messages in websites: anyhow I like reviewing assessments. If you stumble upon a prior assessment page for this Redwood / Sequoia article, email me from M.D. Vadenand send me the link - Thank-you...Mdvaden (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awaiting an admin move

It seems pretty weird to me that an article which didn't even have a talk page is "awaiting an admin move back to Sequoia". Gene Nygaard 09:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please leave it at Sequoia. This is part of an agreed policy change discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life, to work towards a move of plants to scientific name titles, beginning with some conifer families. The move to "california redwood" was not done with reference to the WP:TOL project. - MPF 11:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This just seems weird, even if sequoia is the genus. By all accounts, the tall ones are called Redwoods (or Coast Redwoods) and the fat ones are called Giant Sequoias. It is misleading to call this one Sequoia IMHO. Bonus Onus 01:58, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Bonus Onus. I live in California; when people talk here about a "Sequoia," they mean the Giant Sequoias in the eastern central part of the state. Everyone calls the tall ones "redwoods," as Bonus Onus states. Calling a redwood a "Sequoia" in the common vernacular sounds like it's wrong. While it's an admirable goal to headline articles with scientific names, I think a statement in the introductory sentence should indicate something like "while the correct genus is 'sequoia,' the tree is more commonly referred to as a 'redwood' by the layperson." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so while it should be accurate, it should not be confusing in the effort to be accurate. People will be coming here for information, and they shouldn't be confused in the process or think they're in the wrong article.David Hoag 17:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Leave it. it is the agreed upon policy and this is not subject to what everyone calls it. i fyou dont like it put a redirect in. 03:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I read in the LA Times, decades ago, that the Coast Redwoods live within the range of the fog, and thrive there for that reason. That is a clear difference between them and Giant Sequoias. Ancheta Wis 12:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC) The article on Giant Sequoia says "Giant Sequoia is distinct from the Coast Redwood at the genus level"
Agreed: this article has a misleading title. Coastal redwoods and sequoias are two related but distinct species. The redwoods are taller, slimmer, and live half as long. Redwoods occupy a different ecosystem and have a greater need for water. Durova 16:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Your assessment may be 180 degrees off the mark. The common name "Giant Sequioa" is what is misleading, not this article title. And that is one excellent reason for the goal and priority to set a trend toward Genus names, rather than common names for information and research. A giant sequioa is not a "Sequioa" - it's a giant Sequioadendron. Thus it's name is confusing. So "Sequioa" is fitting for both policy and accuracy when describing a Coastal Redwood - for it Sequioa, not a "Giant Sequioa". —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeWikiteers (talk • contribs) 05:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

It would be nice to have a sound file to help pronounce words like these.

[edit] Tallest tree ever

The Thorpdale, Victoria article states the town once had a tree that was 114 m tall, which is taller than the Dyerville Giant. Piet 10:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops it says tallest sequoia ever not tallest tree. My excuses. Piet 13:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
That height is only an unverified claim, anyway - MPF 10:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is badly named

In California, when referring to a tree, "Sequoia" means exactly one thing: Sequoiadendron giganteum. The trees in this article (Sequoia sempervirens) are called redwoods. Now I can understand having "redwood" as a disambiguation page, but at the very least this page should be given a name that 1) is not used to describe an entirely different organism, and 2) unambiguously refers to this organism. I think the best name would be Coast Redwood, which at least incorporates the common name, though the full binomial name would at least be an improvement over the current title. --Yath 14:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd object, as it would leave it the sole article in Category:Cupressaceae not listed at its scientific name; monotypic genera are also by WP:TOL convention under their genus names only (c.f. Ginkgo, etc) - MPF 00:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Why is it important for all articles in Category:Cupressaceae to be listed at their scientific names? --Yath 03:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family vs. Fairy ring

I know next to nothing about plants. From what I can tell by searching, however, a "fairy ring" is a ring of fungi. I can't find anything about "family ring" online that wasn't copied out of Wikipedia, but at least the image page calls it a "family ring", not a "fairy ring". I may have messed up with the names, but at least there's some transparency now. --Starwiz 04:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this Starwiz. The American Journal of Botany published a study by UC Berkeley's Environmental Science department [1] that refers to "fairy rings" in sequoia populations, and I can find no scholarly reference to "family rings" among sequoias. This may be a weak arguement for reverting back but it seems evidence enough for me. I admit that I, like you Starwiz, have extremely limited knowledge on this topic. If anyone has a more information I'm sure we'd all welcome it. Jared 19:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad this is verified now--that study is way more evidence than I had. I've edited the description Image:Family_ring_of_redwoods.jpg to reflect the change. Starwiz 02:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
To answer that question, since the answer handles several other objections by amateurs: the benefit is one accurate name, versus a cofusing myriad of common names. Besides, searchers can still find the trees in Wikipedia anyway, since common names are included in articles. But common names cause a lot of organizational errors, such as Douglas fir, which is not "fir" nor in the Abies genus of true fir trees. And on another note, Sequoiadendron, the other tree, is more properly "giant sequoia", not "sequioa". Sequoia is a genus, and it refers only to the Coast Redwood.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Height of lowest branches

When we were poking around in Redwood National Park I had my Leica laser rangefinder with me. I did measurements on the lowest major branches of a sequioa tree and they averaged about 125 ft (40 m) above the ground. Truly amazing. My results aren't scientific enough to put in the article, but it's a good "gee whiz" thing for the discussion page. -Rolypolyman 20:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edit

It seems that somebody has used this page to test with wikipedia editing, I deleted this "test" part.--Patillotes 20:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

  • There is a complete lack of in-line cites that needs to be fixed.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Corvus coronoides talk 00:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Delist

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of October 25, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.


You listed lack of in-line cites as the reason. Although I was not part of this article's construction, I'd like to learn how the cites are coded-in, and will try to find and add a couple later this month, but may be delayed due to moving.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Del Norte Titan in Statistics

While researching and reading about Titan redwoods in Jedediah Smith Redwoods, I found one source that said the Del Norte Titan redwood was the largest for volume. That's how the "Statistics" part of this article currently reads. But lately, I discovered a couple of sources online, stating that the Lost Monarch Titan is larger than Del Norte Titan. Would others like to perform a few searches and see what you come up with?ThreeWikiteers (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a bit online to research, but not much. Recently, I found and visited these titan redwood trees. M.D. Vaden Titan Redwood Page
And inbetween visiting those titans and photographing them, I came across a pdf file American Journal of Botany 90(2): 255 - 261. 2003. Apparently that is 2003. And the measurements were likely prior to 2003.. It's a research paper. In a table, it lists 977.9 cubic meters as the main trunk volume for The Lost Monarch titan. And 945.6 cubic meters as the main trunk volume for the Del Norte Titan. With extra reiterated stem volume of 11.5 cubic meters for Lost Monarch and 99.1 for Del Norte titan. This would seem to make the Del Norte Titan larger. But recently, I've seen several websites, listing Del Norte Titan as just over 36,000 cubic feet, and The Lost Monarch at a bit over 40,000 cubic feet. It seems that those references were more recent. I did not bookmark the URLs. We can find them, for certain. Images of the titans available are rare, and for that reason, I'm not planning to donate any to Wikipedia yet.Mdvaden (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Just noticed on Wikipedia's page for the Redwood National and State Parks, in "Flora", that Lost Monarch is said to be the largest redwood with 42,500 cubic feet (1205 cubic meters). The same number showed up on a newsletter for broadband tree wardens. But no source is listed.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Been almost 2 months - no more feedback about the largest redwood. If nobody else replies soon, may make the change in the next couple of weeks. Will wait a few more days for feedback.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Link: Titan Redwoods

Added one external link, to a page with excellent photographs of the largest known coast redwoods, including the Del Norte Titan mentioned in this Sequioa article. In the "Extra Reading", Preston's book The Wild Trees refers to most of the trees shown in the M.D. Vaden photographs. After an intensive search online for images of the Titan redwoods, results are rare. The M.D. Vaden page has the most complete collection of full trunk views available. For ground-level panoramic views, it is the most complete visual documentation available for these trees on the internet. All images are copyrighted, and not available to upload to Wikipedia.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeWikiteers (talk • contribs) 23:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tallest / Largest Edit / BradLuke22 & Lady Arwyn

Could BradLuke22 or Lady Arwyn provide the source for the Titan redwood measurements?

There are a couple of documents online that list Adventurer Tree - few years back - near 32,000 cubic feet. I suspect you have access to a document, table or field notes that may not be online. Are the measurements in a book? Thanks.
Someone - BradLuke or Lady Arwyn - added a tallest / largest section. Seems like a good idea, but some sentence text was discussion that should be in here on the discussion page, so I edited that text and added this as reference. In their edit, they asked if someone might have something more up to date, but I suspect their contribution is the most recent numbers available. I'm unfamiliar with Adventure Tree's size, but the others sound right based on information encountered.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The recent edit for largest redwoods - the table - seems fairly accurate. I'd be very interested even for my own records, what the source is, especially for Adventure Tree. Any chance the editor BradLuke22 is "in the loop" of the Humboldt university program for canopy research?ThreeWikiteers (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if i have put any inaccurate data on, i pretty sure the adventure tree is in the wrong place, but was just trying to use both my book "to find the biggest tree" this site http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/redwoods.html (largest tree's list on the third pic near top) and a few other sources to get the most up to date list, please edit it if you no there wrong.. Sorry for not using discussuion page up till now, i'm new to editing on wiki.. Thanks, Luke 30 april 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradluke22 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back. If Adventurer is slightly over 39,000 cubic feet, you have it in the right spot. It's just that I don't know any numbers for it. For the rest, looks like you have the same numbers I've found. The SineBot automatically added your signature, but if you put 4 Tildes (~), the character to the left of numeral "1" using the shift key, it adds your signature to a comment. Again, that's 4 consecutive Tildes. Feel free to jump in on any of the tree, redwood, sequioa pages for editing any time. Thanks.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for Largest: Opinions sought

For the largest and tallest sizes, someone stuck "Citation Needed". Those might be very hard to come by. There apparently are documents online somewhere, that a lot of saavy experts may not be willing to supply the URL for.

So here's where your opinions will be handy - there is a webpage by a "Certified Arborist" from Oregon, specifically about many of these trees. See Arborist's page about Largest Sequoia Coastal Redwoods. One paragraph is presented as an "Arborist Report" confirming reported trunk diameters for 4 of the Largest trees.
Would that work as ONE starter citation to cover the trunk diameter aspect? This is a Certified professional, whose certification is listed on the International Society of Arboriculture website?
Certainly more citations can be added as they become available. But the secrecy surrounding these trees may require using the outside fringe of the Citation guidelines. Please have your say - thanks.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


Also, I'm not sure of the right way to write multiple citations. If several are needed for one paragraph, or one table, are they placed one right next to another? Or inserted next to the fragments of information that they belong to?ThreeWikiteers (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tallest existing tree species in the world

I edited the text to suggest that the Redwood/Sequoia is the tallest currently existing species of tree in the world. I say "existing" because equally tall specimens of Douglas-Fir (300-415ft), and Australian Eucalyptus (300-400+ft) did exist in original old growth forests as can be extrapolated from solid historical record and scientific evidence. Yet, no other forest today contain as many tall trees in excess of 300 feet as do the Redwood forests of California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.57.16 (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The article would have been shorter, and conveyed they same identical meaning, if you omitted "existing". Because the redwoods exist, and they are the tallest known trees. But it's no real issue, so the added word is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.164.77 (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redwood Documentary Spam

Someone has recently been posting an external link to a documentary page redwoodsdocumentary dot com which has virtually no information or photos. I noticed that other editors have been wise to delete it, but the original spammer has undone the deletion to repost the site of no value. I deleted it again. Keep an eye on it, and please delete it as soon as it shows up, unless they can produce a specific page not yet seen, with substantial info relevant to the article.

One good reason for deletion, is the deletion already by several editors, as well as the original poster of the link not coming into the discussion page about it. They are using a bull in a china shop tactic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.164.77 (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)