Talk:apple tree

apple tree
I imagine someone might like to delete this as a sum of parts. I am doing this nomination for them, while not supporting the nomination. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Please see Citations:appletree. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep at least for translations ("translation target"). My tentative personal inclusion criterion: "The term has to be useful for translation into at least three languages and the three translated terms (i) must be single-word ones and (ii) they must not be closed compounds." The entry meets the criterion: Czech "jabloň", Latin "malus", Spanish "manzano", Slovene "jablana". Translations not contributing to meeting the criterion: German "Apfelbaum", Swedish "äppelträd", Dutch "appelboom". For interest: finds this in some dictionaries, but some of the great ones such as Merriam-Webster online, Collins, AHD, and Macmillan do not have it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Many languages have different words for trees and their fruit. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ƿidsiþ 14:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Undecided. It is 100% SOP, but consider oak tree. The word oak has no other purpose than to precede the word tree (it can be used along, but that's becoming less common). It is basically a world (all existence) vs the world debate, since world in that sense must be preceded by the. --WikiTiki89 15:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, loads of translations. Definitely keep it. Donnanz (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not a reason. By your logic, the definition should be replaced with : . --WikiTiki89 16:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It definitely cinches it. Donnanz (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And even in the unlikely event that this is deleted, the translations can be hosted at [[apple]], under the definition "apple tree". --WikiTiki89 16:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, let's host the translations at the word that only rarely gets used to refer to apple tree. Pure genius. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is widely considered by English speakers that the tree is called "apple". In speech, people say apple tree more often to avoid confusion with the fruit. With oak and oak tree, this is less often the case because oak has no other meanings. --WikiTiki89 17:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are inventing this stuff out of the whole cloth. It is not just in speech that "apple tree" is predominantly used to refer to apple tree; it is also in print. is highly suggestive, given that many of the uses of "apple" alone refer to the fruit. As for the claim that the tree is widely considered to be called "apple", Macmillan "apple" does not have this sense at all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By "speech", I meant complete sentences, sorry for not being clear. Merriam Webster's has this sense, oxforddictionaries.com has this sense, the OED of course has this sense (defined as "Short for apple-tree."), etc. --WikiTiki89 17:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If "by speech" you mean "in use in complete sentences, whether spoken or written", what else is there such that we look for meaning there, per WT:ATTEST? Do you mean like labels on apple trees for sale? I surmise that referring to an apple tree using the word "apple" alone is highly unusual in modern written English; I do not really know about spoken English, since I have no access to a corpus of spoken English. For written and published English, the following is highly suggestive: . --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hah, the right search is this: . This shows that the set of items matching "under an apple" but not either of the latter two items is extremely thin. It also shows that it was so in 1900 no less than in 2000; what has changed in 20th century is the use of "apple-tree" vs. "apple tree". --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Historically, it's worth pointing out that apple tree: precedes apple: by a good five centuries. Ƿidsiþ 20:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd imagine some more arguments about how it's not obvious apple tree doesn't refer to a tree made out of apples, or how there are certain species of apple trees that contain apples but are not scientifically part of the apple tree species, or orange trees that someone decorated and replaced with apples could conceivably be called apple trees... TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WT:COALMINE. Dan Polansky, why did you nominate this if you don't want it deleted? It seems like this is just wasting people's time. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We really need an equivalent of this. Ƿidsiþ 20:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:apple tree was empty, which I found odd. I did not realize it would be kept per coalmine. By my lights, it is, , , nominated in RFD that waste people's time. Since I only rarely nominate anything for RFD, I think I am entitled to a nomination once in a while, even if the editors must endure the (sarcasm)tedium(end of sarcasm) of posting a "keep". --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Kept, Dan Polansky blocked for life as a preemptive warning. DAVilla 05:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If Dan wants another modern usage, how about "The espalier and cordon are restricted forms well suited to the training of apples and pears" from "Topiary And The Art Of Training Plants" (- Page 119) by David Joyce (1999). I'm sure we can find lots more on similar lines if necessary.  I'd be happy with a "Chiefly horticultural" or similar tag, but such usage is not rare, just less common than the fruit.    D b f  i  r  s   08:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @DAVilla: I hope your comment was in jest. I don't really find this funny, though; I perceive this as a veiled threat, certainly not based on WT:BLOCK or any other policy. Again, my overall number of RFD nominations is very small, so any implied claim that I "disrupt" Wiktionary by making this RFD has to be assessed in the light of all those sincere but misguided nominations that we have to deal with in RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A threat? Wow, no. For the record, I've done similar in the past, so I can appreciate that what you're doing is more for common understanding than making a point. Also, even admins who have committed the most egregious acts (like deleting the main page, or blocking other admins) have somehow escaped punishment, so I don't think you have much to worry about. In fact, I remember a time when another admin nominated more than a dozen terms for RFV, all of which ended up passing. Certainly if there is even any wrong here, it pales in comparison. For not finding the humor, you are hereby blocked for two additional life terms, after which the conditions of your block will be reconsidered. DAVilla 12:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)