Talk:Conifer cone

Why the fuck does this not use the name "pinecone"?

That's what people call it! 2A0A:EF40:28E:9F01:943E:EE9B:AE32:7F4B (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I concur. I am relieved to see someone else who is weirded by this. If no-one objects in the next few days I'll move it over as per WP:COMMONNAME. —Kilopylae (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

yeah ok ill do that now, just to get a move on on this. Hugo P. Behrmann (☎) 19:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 16 February 2026

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Oh shit ok I didn’t look hard enough for a previous move request. Is there some way I can close this request all quick-like? (non-admin closure) Hugo P. Behrmann (☎) 02:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

---

Conifer cone → Pine conePine cone – I don't have any sources, because that's not really my forte, but I swear "pine cone" is the commonname for these things. Is this one of those situations where the botanical name gets chosen over what people actually call it for some reason, or is this a valid move?

P.S.: Somebody else in the talk page for this article said they'd move it but then never did, so I'm also doing this to give them a little assist :). Hugo P. Behrmann (☎) 19:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: see the 2019 move discussion. This article talks about cones of other non-pine trees. Changing it to pine cone would be against WP:PRECISE. Pine cone should redirect to Conifer cone#Pinaceae however for more clarity. Or just add "pine cone" in bold per MOS:BOLDSYN.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Requested move 25 May 2026

Conifer cone → Cone (gymnosperms) – Not specific to conifers as it includes cycads too. Cephalocereus (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 09:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Weak move to cone (botany). Note that this page doesn't mention cycad cones (but it does mention Welwitschia which hasn't traditionally been considered a conifer, although there is evidence suggesting it should be included in the conifer clade). There are cycads linked to this page via redirects (cone (botany), seed cone). The cycad page itself has "Both male and female cycads bear strobili, somewhat like conifer cones". I think this article could stay at its current title if strobilus was better developed and relevant redirects (seed cone, pollen cone) were retargeted there. Plantdrew (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Plantdrew: I successfully proposed Conifer cone ◎ 5 to be added to Vital articles - plant reproductive organs along with Strobilus ◎ 5 because I thought they were both important topics, but conifer cone was more specific and strobilus more generic. Would you disagree that both are separately important, and should something be rescoped? Melozone crissalis (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Melozone crissalis:, I agree that both are separately important. Strobilus is more important as the more generic term, but conifer cones are more relevant to humans (this article has a section Conifer_cone#Cultural_uses) than other strobili. Plantdrew (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)