Talk:Tea tree

The text is inaccurate - 'Ti tree' applies only to Melaleuca.218.14.48.191 (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Set index page

Is this page a candidate for a Set index article, as described in Wikipedia:Disambiguation? The DPL bot complains about links to this page, but it is a fact that the name "tea tree" or "tea plant" has historically been used rather ambiguosly.

In this case the article could be "Tea tree (plant)" and the disambuigation page would be reduced to pointing to the new article + the place names. Ziounclesi (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

should Camellia page be linked?

I noticed Camellia isn't linked to, while it is a category of plant that encompasses different "tea trees". I don't have any knowledge of the topic though, so I won't link it.

Current edit war

Having noticed the edit war happening here, thought I'd chip in the following from Wikipedia's Manual of Style for disambiguation pages: "References should not appear on disambiguation pages. Dab pages are not articles; instead, incorporate the references into the target articles." So, no citations need appear on this disambiguation page. What matters is whether it can be verified that the contested entries – which seem to be Melaleuca alternifolia, Leptospermum scoparium and Leptospermum laevigatum – are each known as "tea tree" or a sufficiently similar term such that it's reasonable to assume that someone would type "tea tree" in order to find one of these species.

Hopefully, both sides of this dispute will come here to offer further commentary, instead of automatically reverting each other.

(As a side note, I would point out that entries on disambiguation pages ought only to have one blue link per entry, which is currently not the case.) --VeryCrocker (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether those species are known as tea tree or that someone might be searching for those species with the term tea tree. That isn't in dispute.

The first issue issue is whether Anomalocaris' claim that two species of Leptospermum are more notably called tea tree than all other species within their genera is supported. As noted, to support such a claim, it needs to be referenced in the parent article; the parent articles do not make any such claim. The articles simply note that those species are called tea tree, not that they are more notable than the ~100 other species within that genus.

The second issue is Anomalocaris' claim that only Melaleuca alternifolia is known as tea tree, and no other species within the genus. The Melaleuca article says specifically that most larger species are known as tea trees. So the deletion of the entire Melaleuca genus in favour of a single species in the disambiguation page is a direct violation of policy.

Anomalocaris' actions here are as bizarre as if he went to Oak (disambiguation) and removed "a tree or shrub in the genus Quercus" and replaced it with "Quercus ajoensis — scrub oak — Arizona and Quercus alba — white oak". I'm sure we don't dispute that those two species are known as oaks or that it's reasonable to assume that someone would type "oak" in order to find one of these species. Nonetheless the oak page links to the genus, not those two species because most species in the genus are known as oaks. In exactly the same way, most species of Melaleuca and Leptospermum are known as tea tree. When all or most of a genus are known by a single common name, and that statement is referenced in the genus article, it is a direct violation of policy to remove the genus and replace it with just two species. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)