Talk:apricot tree

RFD discussion: September–November 2017
Sum of parts? If so, all of the other similar trees added by the same anon can go as well. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Are foreign non-English words for this subject often a single word, as they are for apple tree? bd2412 T 21:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See Talk:oak tree, for an analogous entry which was kept, based on WT:COALMINE. I doubt COALMINE applies for this term.
 * The existence of entries for foreign terms that may be a single word should suffice, given the power of even basic search. I don't really think that we should have such entries just so that we have a place for redlinks for foreign terms that no one takes the trouble to add. If someone needs to have a list from which to make entries for the non-SoP words in foreign languages that are translations of this type of SoP English term, we could add an appendix that contained all the English terms of the forms "X bush", "X tree", "X vine", "X flower", etc, including other organisms and even terms outside biology. We could also utilize translation tables in Translingual entries. DCDuring (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All of that seems more complicated, and less useful to the reader, than just having an entry at apricot tree, and all the other named living organisms. bd2412 T 23:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And apricot fruit? Apricot grove? Many languages have regular ways of showing those with different genders and derivational endings. Don't ignore the "well, duh!" factor: if I click on "apricot tree" and discover that our definition consist of "a tree" ... "that's an apricot" ... I feel cheated. The presence of an entry promises that there's content, but there's nothing there that you don't already know from the name of the entry. IMO these are best treated as subsenses of apricot, etc., with translation tables for those subsenses in the entry, rather than separate entries with useless definitions. Delete them all. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose there isn't an SoP entry of any kind that can't be deemed to be of use to some user, somewhere, under some circumstances, limited only by the user's willingness to enter the collocation in the search box and await downloading. I was only interested in the translation-table rationale, which is principally of concern to contributors, seemingly not sufficiently motivated to create full entries for the FL term. DCDuring (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete (all), the second definition at apricot is literally "the apricot tree". Personally, I'd propose the deletion of apple tree, oak tree, etc., on the same grounds, but I accept that the subject has been discussed before and I wouldn't want to question the consensus. DCDuring's appendix suggestion might be a soultion, even though I'm not really fond of appendixes. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I take the point that you can say "apricot tree" whereas you can't say "robin bird", but am inclined to delete these. I believe the OED's approach is to include lists of common obvious collocations that don't have individual definitions. Equinox ◑ 11:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete if no evidence of a spaceless spelling can be found. (I can't find any; all the b.g.c hits are actually for  or .) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I have started a vote on amending CFI to include names of plants and animals even if they would otherwise be excluded as 'sum of parts'. I feel like we ought to have an explicit policy on this. *https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-09/All_plants_and_animals_to_meet_CFI John Cross (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The name is apricot. The word tree just specifies that you're talking about the mature plant rather than the fruit. If it were the actual name, as in smoke tree, it wouldn't be SOP. It's clearer with maple tree, which is an unnecessary elaboration on maple, since any use of maple to refer to the tree is abundantly obvious from the context to be the tree, and not any other form. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Now that I think of it: isn't the "apple" etc. in "apple tree" referring to the fruit, so it's "tree that bears apples" - rather than a redundant "apple[kind-of-tree] tree"? (Not so, however, with e.g. "elm tree".) Equinox ◑ 18:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I would say that "apple tree" is a "tree that bears apples" and "apple[kind-of-tree]" is just short for "apple tree". Nevertheless I think "apple tree" is SOP. --WikiTiki89 18:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. --WikiTiki89 15:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The foreign one-word translations are typically of the form t(apricot)t(tree), unlike in the case of "piece of furniture" which was discussed in detail earlier. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thinking outside the box, I say keep. Would you say "an orchard full of apricots" or "an orchard full of apricot trees"? DonnanZ (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say either. I would say "an orchard of apricots" or "an apricot orchard". Google books has 4 hits for your first phrase, and 2 for your second. That said, I don't see any reason why the second should be any better than the first. Sending your own test right back at you: would you say "an apricot-tree orchard" or "an apricot orchard"? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. It would be odd to say "there's an apricot growing on that apricot", and "apricot tree" is unusually well-attested for a redundant term. It is in this regard an idiomatic pleonasm, comparable to ATM machine and PIN number (which we include precisely because they are). bd2412 T 00:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Turkey.Pasa Baglari005.jpg you ask “what is it?” seeing this scene (right), they will say “it’s an apricot tree” rather than “it’s an apricot”. But I’m not sure, as our article says “Apricot tree is less commonly used by far than apricot in referring to such trees.” — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * keep. It feels like a term in its own right - the longer form gives clarity because it makes it clear you are not talking about the fruit. John Cross (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, entries for apple tree and oak tree exist and are used often.--78.3.156.219 18:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Can anons even vote here? --WikiTiki89 15:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not? Even if it is disallowed the anon made a valid point. DonnanZ (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. IP editors are valued contributors, too. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they can't give their opinion, but I don't think they should be able to vote. Otherwise it's difficult to enforce one vote per person. --WikiTiki89 21:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Technically, it's not a !vote anyway. The closing administrator will take into account the degree to which participants in the discussion are IPs, SPAs, or otherwise appropriately discounted in weight. bd2412 T 23:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My position is that RFD posts should be evaluated using the same eligibility criteria as normal votes. If a user not eligible makes a strong argument in a discussion, they can hope to sway eligible contributors to vote accordingly. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, they should be allowed to voice their opinion, since this is obviously the creator of the entry. I think it's important to add for the record that this IP is most likely a sock of BrunoMed, who was blocked for mass-creating poor-quality entries, and for repeatedly ignoring warnings about SOP and attestation. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep since "apricot tree" seems to be more common to refer to the tree than apricot alone if I am to believe . In that graph, the frequencies of the search terms are rather close to each other, showing that all but a fraction of occurrences of the latter term are actually occurrences of the former term. Therefore, the note present in the entry seems incorrect: 'Apricot tree is less commonly used by far than apricot in referring to such trees.' Does anyone have data to prove me wrong? Now, if apricot tree really is more common, I would like to keep the entry to hold FL translations, and let FL entries referring to the tree point to that entry rather than apricot alone. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per previous.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * RFD kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

RFD discussion: May 2021–February 2022
I just stumbled on (maybe "stepped in" would be more appropriate) a whole bunch of redundant and SOP entries for trees created by an IP who bears all the marks of blocked user BrunoMed. They were blocked for ineptly creating huge blocks of cookie-cutter entries, apparently from lists. These are a prime illustration of the technique, and why it's a bad idea. They mostly consist of:

wikipedia

en-noun


 * 1) A tree of the [taxonomic rank] [taxon name], [a rehash of the definition from the real entry, or a lame improvised one]


 * [name of the entry] is less commonly used by far than [the real entry] in referring to such trees.

The summary on shows the cookie-cutter aspect fairly well.
 * en

apricot tree

 * This term is actually listed on WT:Idiom as an example of an idiomatic phrase. In fact the previous RFD was no consensus. Assuming it passes this time, we should probably solidify more clearly why it does, especially if not all of the entries here should. DAVilla 09:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

beech tree
Here the usage note starts out with "In some dialects," for some reason.
 * This can be kept per COALMINE:   ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  13:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

birch tree
Here again the usage note starts out with "In some dialects,".

crabapple tree
The definition "A tree of the genus Malus." refers to domestic apples as well as crabapples

London plane tree
I removed the usage note that said " London plane tree is less commonly used by far than London plane maple in referring to such trees", because the London plane is definitely not a maple, though the genus Platanus shares the common name sycamore with some maples
 * I heard the term "London plane tree" mentioned on BBC Radio today, so it may be worth keeping it. DonnanZ (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

peach tree
Here they left out the second half of the definition, so it reads "A tree in the genus Prunus". A look at Category:en:Prunus genus plants shows just how bad a definition that is.

swamp oak tree
There have been more species added at swamp oak, but not here. That shows why this kind of an entry is a bad idea: it gives the false impression that swamp oak tree means something different from swamp oak


 * That's more a matter of where to place the lemma. If it were at swamp oak tree, then swamp oak could be defined something like: a swamp oak tree or its wood. The latter meaning seems to be missing here. DAVilla 10:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

willow tree
I could say more, but this will have to do for now. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to keep all the two-word entries. I have a fig tree which bears figs, which can fall on my head without warning in the summer, and a crabapple tree which bears crabapples. In both cases I tend to use the full name. DonnanZ (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe for the ones where the [X] of [X tree] is the name of the fruit the tree bears, but maple trees don't bear maples and beech trees don't bear beeches. —Mahāgaja · talk 23:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * If applies, keep per WT:COALMINE (e.g., appletree, oaktree, and elmtree (which is listed)). J3133 (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a love-hate relationship with WT:COALMINE, whether it applies or not.
 * Generally I find removal of any of the two-word terms would be rather unhelpful, but have no objection to removal of the three-word terms nominated.
 * As an aside, could London plane be misconstrued as an aircraft flying to London? DonnanZ (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In the right context, sure. Does "We boarded the London plane" mean we got onto a fixed-wing aircraft bound for London, or does it mean we cut a tree trunk into boards? —Mahāgaja · talk 11:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, context does indeed matter. DonnanZ (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your relationship is not relevant; it meets CFI as we voted for “unidiomatic multi-word phrases to meet CFI when the more common spelling of a single word”. J3133 (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's see, in place names we have ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; . Something of a mixed bag. DonnanZ (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you do not like the CFI create a discussion at the Beer parlour because I came to RFD not the Beer parlour. J3133 (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ?? If you read between the lines of the above examples you should be able to see that I accept that WT:COALMINE can apply in many cases. DonnanZ (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - As we keep oak / oaktree / oak-tree / oak tree, I hold that we should keep both eucalyptus and eucalyptus tree, so long as there is one entry with a def and the other entries are cross-references to it. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and redefine each. E.g. maple - 1.1 a maple tree (that entry to have details) - 1.2 wood from the trunk of a maple tree, e.g. maple flooring; six cords of maple - 1.3 a product derived from the sap of a maple tree, e.g. maple syrup, maple sugar - 1.4 the flavor of the above; maple flavor, e.g. maple candy, maple milkshake; - 1.5 a leaf from a maple tree; a maple leaf. This would probably also help resolve apricot and London plane. Facts707 (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep most if not all. DAVilla 09:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per J3133 and, if applicable, per Facts707. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  14:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep those entries for which WT:COALMINE applies, per J3133, but delete the rest. Imetsia (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Chop them all down and burn them.  Feed them into a woodchipper and use them for mulch.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep all. AG202 (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. Opinions here are many and varied, but mass nominations often end up with responses that some of the nominated terms should be kept without digging deeply into which ones. I would suggest that a nomination focused on a few specific three-word formulations would fare better. bd2412 T 21:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Why don't we make them all "Synonym of" entries? I had started doing so while cleaning up entries with bad WP links. Some of these lack important definitions, eg, a red oak tree can be any tree or species of nearly a hundred species in Quercus sect. Lobatae, not just of Quercus rubra. DCDuring (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)