Talk:Oak (disambiguation)

some kind of lettuce

There's a type of lettuce that's labeled as "oak"... it might be good if someone could add a page for it. I know nothing about it (other than that it exists), so I'm not the right person... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.98.53 (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

MOSDAB and partial matches

I just fixed this DAB according to the style guide of WP:MOSDAB. 1. Why has the TOC now been put too high? - instead of above the first section header per MOSDAB? Are these other oak species referred to as oaks? if not, they are partial matches - so should not be included per WP:PTM? Widefox; talk 23:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I moved back the TOC. It was force of habit to move it up under the first line, as that's usually where the section heading is. Nick Number (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. As this is an accessibility issue per MOSDAB, you may want to fix that on other DABs you have edited. Widefox; talk 07:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Partial oak matches

Why are the oak partial matches included? per WP:PTM I will remove them unless there's a reason. Widefox; talk 07:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If someone wants to find out what the "oak" tree actually is, Grevillea robusta, for example, they aren't likely to find it using partial page matches amongst the enormous clutter from place names that include the word oak. It shows up in the second set of 500 pages that match that search. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The article Grevillea robusta doesn't mention it being referred to simply as "oak" (it does say "Silky oak"), which by WP:PTM should not be included in the DAB. You may want to put these partial matches in a list article (and refer to that in the see also from this DAB). I personally find them interesting. Widefox; talk 13:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well that is seriously unhelpful. People talk about oaks all the time, as in "an oak cabinet" without specifying whether it is white oak, silky oak, or tanbark oak. I can attest that in areas where Grevillea robusta grows, it is referred to simply as "oak", but ordinary Australian speech isn't a citation, therefore I won't add it to the page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

These species being locally referred to as oak might fail the sufficiently generic context covered by the zoo example in WP:PTM (generally if the article mentions it yes, if not no) BUT...

DAB pages are for navigation only - a reader types oak and gets to oak (it is the primary topic) where the first line already disambiguates this list of the 600 species. What you're suggesting is someone gets to the oak entry, then purposefully navigates away from the plant topic to the DAB only to chose the plant topic again. This is why we put the primary topic separately at the top as we're certain they've come from the primary topic already.

I hadn't checked - there's no need to create a list article - these 600 species already have an article List of Quercus species, which I will add to cover this.

Compare with other examples - wasp has 100,000 species, should they be all listed in wasp (disambiguation)? Widefox; talk 06:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all, the plants you keep deleting are NOT QUERCUS. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Please say what doesn't make sense, in terms of the MOS / navigation. You also haven't replied to my points above, but only revert my change. I am trying to reach consensus with you, which I presumed (obviously incorrectly) that we had done above as you are not refuting any of my points. Each of those (e.g. Allocasuarina, she-oak) is not referred to in the articles as "oak" and even if they were, the article "oak" covers all these species, not just Quercus (so that seems to be the right location). I take it you're not refuting that DABs do not include partial matches, and these are partial matches? Also, why must these Antipodean oak species be listed, when the other 600 are not? That appears to be a bias (WP:POV). Widefox; talk 03:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added the cleanup flag so that others can give their opinions. Widefox; talk 07:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You've now taken this to my talk page, so I'll respond there. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The entries (Quercus (disambiguation) , List of Quercus species) were removed with this edit [1] without reason in the edit summary or this talk page. Why? Widefox; talk 11:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That was a mistake, sorry, I've fixed it now. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-Quercus "oaks"

To summarize the discussion referred to above that took place elsewhere, here is a summary from my position; I can't do justice to the other side of the argument because I don't understand it. The other editor wants to delete the non-Quercus oak species from this page.

• Species with listed common names such as "silky oak" or "white oak" are also known simply as "oak", and "oak" doesn't need to be separately listed as a common name on each of their pages. It would be difficult to find a citation for each such listing because scholarly reference works don't always separately list such components of the common names.
• This disambiguation page already lists Quercus as the primary meaning of oak, so there is no need to separately list all of the species within that genus on this page.
• The Oak page is actually only about the genus Quercus, which is a somewhat unfortunate effect of the common wikipedia convention that pages are titled using the most frequently used name, rather than the most precise name.
• The non-Quercus "oaks" such as Casuarina glauca cannot be listed on the Oak page because of the previous point.
• The non-Quercus "oaks" such as Casuarina glauca belong here because the list of them is useful. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

(my comment copied from Sminthopsis84's talk page): I agree, anything that is referred to as "oak" or "x oak" should be on the DAB page. Just take a look at the very page that WP:Dab introduces as a model example of a Dab page, Mercury. Dab pages should err on the side of inclusion, if anything. First Light (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. One of our local "oaks" is the Tan oak, which is also not in Quercous, even though it has many similarities with other "oaks", including an "acorn". First Light (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not following the other suggestion. Quercus species are listed in that article, and now it is suggested we remove all non-Quercus oaks from this dab? And what, make a non-Quercus-oaks dab? Is that the idea? Eau (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If I'm following the argument underneath the hostility, Widefox is saying that "silky oak", for example, is a partial title match and so should not be on the page. Sminthopsis is saying that silky oaks are often just called "oak", and so partial title match doesn't apply. I think this is the crux of the disagreement; if I'm wrong, I hope someone will clarify.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

While I can see how WP:PTM could be read as either for or against including non-Quercus oaks on the DAB, in practice it seems to me to be useful to include them. I would be happy to hear suggestions for a better way to guide people searching for information about a non-Quercus oak, but just cutting these from the DAB without providing a substitute seems to me to be a disservice to the general reader. Tdslk (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what would be a page title for the nonQuercus"' oaks dab? I hate common names. I think this would create an unnecessary situation, another hat note at oak, then possibly a redirect from the dab. Eau (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment This is exactly the sort of conversation that belongs on this talk page, not in user talk space. Eau (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The structure of this disambiguation page matches that of other comparable pages, e.g. Cedar (disambiguation), Pine (disambiguation), Beech (disambiguation). Botanists may know that the "proper" meaning of "oak" is a member of the genus Quercus, but there's no reason for the general reader to know this. The disambiguation page should point to all relevant pages, at the appropriate level (thus to Quercus/Oak rather than to all Quercus species).

The argument about partial match is a false one in this context. Many common names of plants need qualifiers when considered at the international or national level, but often don't have them when considered at the national or regional level. Thus in the UK, "beech" referring to a wild plant is unambiguously Fagus sylvatica. But in a wider context it has to be called "European beech". Hence whether "beech" is a full or partial match depends on who is doing the searching. General readers cannot and should not be expected to understand such subtleties in order to find articles. The disambiguation pages for "oak", "cedar", "pine", "beech", etc. should lead, directly or indirectly, to all articles about plants which have these words in their common names, regardless of genus. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Further thought: this is exactly the kind of muddle that arises when common names are used as article titles. "Oak" is not a suitable article title, since it does not have a 1:1 relationship with "Quercus". I would support moving the Oak article to the scientific name, as per WP:PLANTS policy. This would have the side effect of stopping the disambiguation page implying that "oak" really means "Quercus" so that other meanings are in some sense "wrong", which may be the source of User:Widefox's obviously well-intentioned but nevertheless wrong objections to the page as it is. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I was trying (and I failed badly!) to find out if these non-Quercus oaks should be at oak or not. My concern wasn't about changing the name or scope of oak but trying to understand it - so I could decide if the "xxxx oaks" should be on oak, the DAB, or possibly a new list article. For example, the non-Quercus Lithocarpus is mentioned in oak and the DAB. Whatever the scope of oak, this is illogical and ambiguous and should be fixed leading to my (bad) query for clarity (which retrospectively I should have cast wider, as I'm now getting a good answer - thanks).

Comment: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) does cover these non-1:1 relationships: "In cases where multiple taxa share the same common name, a disambiguation page should be used". I think that may need to be more specifically worded. There must be examples, and I'm thinking list articles might help especially for long lists. I'll put a note in at the Disambiguation Project when clear. Widefox; talk 15:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily recommending this approach, but consider Ironwood and Ironwood (disambiguation) for a case where the list of plants with the shared common name were separated from the general disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 15:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I had a similar thought, but didn't realize that approach had been used. Whatever is done, it needs to serve the needs of the reader—that includes local folk all over the world for whom "oak" can mean any number of genera and species. As opposed to 'our' need to try to shoehorn this into multiple policies that are open to interpretation. First Light (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite see how the "ironwood" example applies here. "Ironwood" isn't mainly used as the name of a genus; "oak" is. To make the analogy work, we would need an article at "Oak" which covered all species to which the common name "oak" is applied and another article at "Quercus" covering the genus. Then, I agree, the dab page could be shorter because this "Oak" article would cover some of it. But surely no-one is seriously suggesting this approach? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The way I would see the ironwood example applied: Oak would be all the plants called "oak", including a link to the genus Quercus. Oak (disambiguation) would link to Oak, not need a "Plants" section, and list all the other uses.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Logic (updated):

either:

• A) the scope of oak is all oaks (not just Quercus) -> they deserve to be listed at oak and not at the DAB

or

• B) the scope of oak is just Quercus (they are not within the scope of oak) -> they should not be listed there
  • mention of non-Quercus e.g. Lithocarpus may be ambiguous as they are oaks (so seem to be within the scope of the topic) but they are actually not within the scope of the oak article -> This should be made clear e.g. being in a see also, hatnote etc)
  • If taxa are known as oaks, but the articles only state "xxxx oak" - they appear to fail partial matches, so how is anyone meant to know they as known as oaks? -> It should be transparent that the entry should be listed in this DAB (as for other articles), so that the criterion of partial match does not exclude them (and people get upset). I mean a better way than "plants - hands off our useful navigation!" Widefox; talk 17:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd go with (A). [ec] To reinforce some of the things that have been said here, I want to introduce another example: the tree called gum. I'm sure my Australian colleagues think of Eucalyptus when they see that. Growing up in the south-central US, I think of either Liquidambar styraciflua or Nyssa sylvatica. Here in California, we use qualifiers such as blue gum, and sweet gum and black gum could be distinguished, but in both areas, people would have a sense of what you meant if you said "gum tree".

"Oak" is different; the word itself had originally a specific meaning (perhaps as specific as Quercus robur), which tends to skew things. But if we equate "oak" and Quercus, it's really just regional bias. So I'm in favor of separate articles.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

So to be clear, you are in favour of two articles, one called "Oak" and one called "Quercus". The "Oak" article would briefly discuss all the kinds of tree which have been called "oaks"; the other would be a strict genus article. Is that right?

If so, I'm not really sure that there is enough material for the "Oak" article, i.e. it seems to me that it would just be a slightly expanded disambiguation page. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with Peter on this. Separating Oak from Quercus would only result in "Oak" becoming a glorified disambiguation page, given that there's really nothing you can write about it except that they have the same common names.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Despite the large number of Australian species called "xxx oak" enter oak here, I always equate the word oak on its own with with the genus Quercus, and I would never use the word without qualification (eg. she oak) to refer to a non-Quercus species. (disclaimer: I am only one of 22 million Australians).--Melburnian (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess the sticking point for me is the partial matches. If I'm understanding Widefox's original proposal, someone wanting to know about the coast live oak tree on one side of a building where I work, but not knowing its precise name, only that it was an oak, would still get to the genus article. But if that person wanted to know about the she oak tree on the other side of that building, again only knowing that it was an oak, they'd be out of luck. Now no one in California except perhaps a recent transplant from Australia would ever think of both of those trees as oaks, and Melburnian suggests that at least some Aussies would make the distinction. But the bottom line is that partial matches in Quercus would always have special standing over partial matches in any other tree called "oak", and I'm not convinced that's the best outcome for the reader.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

However it's done, the partial match oaks should be on the same dab page (under a different heading) as the Quercus oaks. I'm not a recent transplant, I know a little bit about the difference between common name and scientific names, and it was news to me, though not a stunning surprise, that Tanbark oak was not a Quercus species (and therefore not an 'oak'?). We need to put the needs of the common reader first, rather than making them pay for a policy that, in this case, doesn't serve them well. First Light (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

First Light, when I give field trips in the Bay Area, many locals call tanbark oak an oak, even those who would otherwise call only Quercus oaks oak.

Can we then move the current oak article to Quercus, make oak for all commonly named oaks except for '"Quercus'", and then have a hatnote on Quercus to the dab and to the other plants commonly named oak article? Eau (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The resulting oak would be more than just a dab (instead basically a setindex), and it could contain information about why all these are called oaks (in the case of Lithocarpus, because of the acorns, in the case of she oak, the wood, etc.) --Curtis Clark (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This would be good, oak is a very important word in English, and concept, it should not have been taken for the name of the Quercus article, imo. Eau (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm convinced by the discussion above that "Oak" would be a worthwhile, albeit short, article. I suggest an admin (Curtis?) moves the current "Oak" article to "Quercus" and we can then cooperate on a new "Oak" article. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest going through WP:RM to ensure this approach enjoys broad consensus and is not a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS older ≠ wiser 11:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree about WP:RM, and anyway I'm not an admin (although I played one at a university for a while).--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

RM looks like the right method with this much discussion, plus project posts about the move request at plants and hort. I can't so it, I am still stuck in the field with limited access. Eau (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

For the purposes of discussion, it might help if someone could put together a version of the plant/tree-only oak WP:CONCEPTDAB page would look like. Could be in user space or at a temporary name. For those coming into the discussion without context, it often helps to see what is being proposed rather than proposing that an as yet non-existent page take the place of an existing page. older ≠ wiser 01:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a rough start. Edit away!--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)