Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of forest-inventory conifers east of the Mississippi/archive1

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 04:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This finishes up my efforts on the North American conifers. Licensing tallies for the seven rows of images that haven't appeared before are in the first note on the list's talk page. Once again, there's some basic information here about some conifers that are common in North America (and many are common in temperate zones around the world). Feedback is welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 04:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Reywas92

What about conifers that aren't in the forest inventory? Specifically, "forest-inventory conifers" is not a term in use. Even without changing the content and keeping the inventory as the inclusion criteria, "List of conifers..." would be a more concise and accessible name.
Since the book is available online, please link to it in the references.
- Rather not. I've read that online version in the past and noticed differences from the published book.
  - Hmm that's interesting. Perhaps some updates since the book is older?
Some of the common names are in small text, please be consistent with regular size, no need to shrink the more recognizable names.
The inventory says Abies magnifica has a range on the west coast, it doesn't mention NY
Most of the trees' articles have a distribution map like File:Pinus pungens distribution map.png – it would be more informative to include those instead of just an alphabetical list of state abbreviations.
I didn't realize how limited most of these ranges are and how few are on both sides of the country, but it's weird to only list the portion of the trees' distributions in eastern states. Like for Pseudotsuga menziesii it lists only NJ NY PA when in fact the distribution includes much of the west.
To this point though, I'm not entirely sure why List of forest-inventory conifers west of the Mississippi needs to be a separate article. Even with ~~limited~~ overlap, do the sources identify the Mississippi as a dividing line for conifers? I'm don't see why there shouldn't simply be a List of conifers of the United States. And with that, is there a reason for MN to be in the west? The ones that are there tend to be more heavily in the east.
- I take back "limited" – of the 32 trees on this list, 17 – more than half – are also on the west list, which has 49. Therefore a combined list would be a perfectly manageable 64 items without duplication and things like Pinus echinata saying on one list the distribution is "AR LA MO OK TX" while on the other "OH IL KY, the Southeast and the Mid-Atlantic". For some of these, the division is more northern vs. southern, or the listed states includes non-native range.

Reywas92^Talk 15:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm having some health issues, but I'll get to all of this eventually. - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Get well soon! Reywas92^Talk 16:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: At first I didn't think it would be possible to combine the eastern US and western US lists, but giving it more thought, I think it's doable. If you don't have any objection to this proposal, then I'll withdraw this nomination and get to work on combining them (and hopefully get support from the existing supporters of the Western US list). - Dank (push to talk) 23:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to combining them into List of forest-inventory conifers in the United States (or just List of conifers in the United States, I am a little confused why we need to specify in the title that it's the ones growing in forests, instead of just specifying in the lede that it's the native trees of the country). I'll close this nom. --Pres N 01:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.