Talk:Bükkábrány mummified forest

Cool article, but can we find a less awkward title? "Bükkábrány petrified forest", or something? K. Lásztocska 04:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Rename

I know it's not the best and I've been thinking a lot but couldn't come up with a better title. The unique about the forest is that it's not petrified and not carbonized. I have a few pieces of wood from one of the cypresses and it absolutely looks like it was broken off a living tree. – Alensha ^talk 11:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow!! Maybe "Bükkábrány ancient forest" then? I dunno...you're right it's hard to come up with a good title for this one...K. Lásztocska 13:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It occurred to me, but I think this forest will be really very famous one day, and then the name Bükkábrány will be a problematic one since it might be hard for non-Hungarians to pronounce... – Alensha ^talk 14:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems

The title is not only clumsy, but also blatantly wrong. Bald cypress is not a cypress. Besides, could we have something more reliable than news as a source? Colchicum 11:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on plants, if anyone can come up with a better title, I'd be glad to see it change. Everyone calls them cypresses here.

This is a very recent discovery, so it is not included in any scientific works yet, there are only the news resources, but they cite important persons, the 2nd source cites Tamás Pusztai, the deputy head of the archaeological department of one of the largest museums in Hungary, Miklós Kázmér, the director of the paleontology department of one of the most renowned universities and the third source cites the environment minister Gábor Fodor. Also, if you ask any Hungarians who did not live under a rock in the past month, they'll be able to verify it, as this is one of the most discussed topic here now. – Alensha ^talk 14:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, ok, but I'd recommend to change Cypress (which normally refers to Cupressus) to Taxodium, which would be more correct. Maybe something like 2007 discovery of a Miocene Taxodium grove in Hungary, but it is still awkward. Are you sure that they are not fossilized? This is very strange and needs better referencing. What exactly has been said and by who? I think a quotation would be appropriate (of a paleobotanist rather than a journalist or a politician). Colchicum 15:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, this is a bit silly, but how often will we have to move the page? For instance, in the year 102007 AD, will our distant descendants not be forced to move it to 8.1 million years old cypresses, in 1002007 AD, to Nine million years old cypresses, etc? Biruitorul 16:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the time stopped in 1950 AD. Colchicum 16:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

For now. Of course, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but we can reasonably assume time hasn't stopped forever. Biruitorul 17:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, so if Westerners can't pronounce "Bükkábrány" :), how about "Ancient Hungarian cypress forest" or something? (Biru, thanks a lot, now I'm delightedly imagining what Wikipedia will look like a million years from now. When reading an article about a place, you can teleport there and see for yourself! Reading a biography, you can take a trip back in time and meet him yourself! And, new feature, you can now upload and download actual memories of historical events, which should take care of a lot of interpretation problems.) :)

I guess "2007 discovery of a Miocene Taxodium grove in Hungary" isn't too bad. It's a little clunky, but basically clear and accurate. Or how about just "Miocene-era Taxodium grove in Hungary"? It's about the grove, after all, not only the discovery thereof... K. Lásztocska 17:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that I am pretty sure there were many Miocene-era Taxodium groves in Hungary (it is an established fact and not a sensation that Taxodium grew in this region), there are even chances that this is not the only one discovered (I am not sure, though). What is supposed to be so special here is the absence of fossilization, but it would be too complex for a title (and should be sourced better in any case). Therefore either 2007 discovery of X or X discovered in 2007 seems really unavoidable. Colchicum 18:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to be a party pooper, but this honestly doesn't deserve its own article, and it should be merged as a section of Taxodium. We can't have an article for every mildly famous discovery in the natural sciences. --Vlmastra 23:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not mildly famous, the whole country has been talking about these trees in the past few weeks.

There'll be a conference about them soon, I hope there'll be more articles about the trees then and I'll be able to update the article. – Alensha ^talk 12:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, your article (for it was you who created it) may (possibly) violate wikipedia guidelines. Please see WP:NOT#INFO. Please also note that I did not suggest deletion of the material. I only suggested that it might better serve as part of the article on Taxodium. I still don't think this stands well on its own.--Vlmastra 23:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I know you mean well, but, with all respect, I don't agree. This is a unique discovery and there'll be more info about them. As for the guideline you linked, several articles which don't meet it are kept. What's the "long-term historical notability" of, for example, Cassie Bernall, who could be merged into the Columbine massacre article? (this was not meant to be a Pokemon test but an example showing that while certain subjects are well known in one country, they aren't well known in other countries). – Alensha ^talk 23:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I know quite a lot of paleobotanists and paleontologists and stratigraphers--they've all heard of this. Some folks may not understand the significance, but others apparently do, so that we have an article on the topic. Tahnks. KP Botany 01:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

thank you! – Alensha ^talk 22:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The title is still very awkward and prob should be renamed. I think a better title would be along the lines of Bükkábrány mummified forest. --Kevmin § 20:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Also this 2009 palaeobotanical paper on the site lists only two genera o trees preserved as stumps, Taxodioxylon (closer in relation modern Sequoia) and Glyptostroboxylon (closer to modern Glyptostrobus) thus the use of cypress in the name is completely wrong. --Kevmin § 20:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Claim of uniqueness

This line: "The find is unique, since trees this old have never been found in their original state and original place before" is in the opening paragraph. However it is not actually true, as at least one other mummified forest is known which is older. The mummified forest on Axel Heiberg island in the Canadian arctic dates to the middle Eocene. Possibly this hsould be rewored to the only mummified forest in Europe? --Kevmin § 20:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be glad if you could improve the article; I haven't heard of the Axel Heiberg island forest, and I'm not a paleobotanist (or any other kind of botanist, for that matter). I know the usage of cypress in the title is wrong, this is just what the press called them, and I couldn't come up with anything better. If "mummified forest" is a term used by experts, we should rename this article to "mummified forest in Hungary" or something like that.

Their new exhibition building is being constructed now btw, they'll be on permanent exhibition there soon :) – Alensha ^talk 21:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bükkábrány mummified forest. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070806/sc_afp/hungaryarchaeologyforests;_ylt=AvcAPetguBPPYcP8asHSN097hMgF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927225839/http://reggel.hu/index.php?apps=cikk&cikk=88180 to http://reggel.hu/index.php?apps=cikk&cikk=88180

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)