Talk:Tree

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tree article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 3 months

Climate change Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Forestry (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry

Plants High‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Tree has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 1, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 14, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed
October 6, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 29, 2014. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the tallest known tree* is more than 115 meters tall?*
Current status: Good article

Improving a few section names etc

I'm planning on improving a few sections with the intention of making the names more sensible and consistent. Specifically:

1) Cleanup the Definition & Overview sections by:

1a) Rename "Definition" to "Definition and overview"

1b) Move first paragraph of existing Overview section (which - among other things - distinguishes trees from shrubs) into ""Definition and overview" section, which already includes "must be tall" discussion.

1c) Change name of remainder of the existing "Overview" section (four paragraphs) to "Classification", because that is what most its contents are: various ways to classify or categorize trees.

2) Create new section named "In culture" to contain: Trees in art; trees _as_ art; trees in literature; trees in worship; etc

2a) Put existing "Mythology" section into new "In culture" section

2b) Rename existing "Mythology" section to "Religion and mythology"

3) Ensure uniform subsection names under "Uses" section: in particular: subsections should be named after use, not tree part

3a) Change name of "Bark" section to be the use(s) of the individual paragraphs (may or may not require 2+ new subsections)

4) Split existing "trunk" section into "Trunk" section and "Bark" sections, because bark covers more than only the trunk (not clear yet if Bark should be subsection of Trunk or not; probably not)

5) Define "Threats" section to be limited to "threats to trees/forests etc"; excludes "threats to humans"

5a) Move "threats to humans" material from that section into some other TBS section

I'm not planning on changing any content of the above sections ... merely renaming & some simple re-organizing. I'm planning on doing this in the couple of days. If you have any thoughts or suggestions, let me know. Of course, any changes can be modified/undone. Noleander (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Classification" at least is a poor name as 99% of the time it means "Taxonomy", but there is no such implication here. I suppose we could call the section "Types" as long as it is clear this is not equivalent to "Taxa".

I'm not sure I agree, either, about the idea that the "Uses" s/sections can all be named after specific, often minor uses; in particular, "Bark" names a major source of products, but several of those products are way too minor to deserve s/sections of their own. The meaning "Uses of bark" is perfectly comprehensible and should stay, though I daresay "Bark products" would do as well. The search for strict uniformity always falls foul of nature's diversity and the range of human ingenuity, and that's true here.

Not keen on inserting "and" into any section heading.

"Threats" is perfectly plain, as the article's subject is "Tree"; just as "Uses" means "Uses of trees", so "Threats" means "Threats to trees"; there is no call whatsoever to bring humans in as subjects (that's anthropocentrism, of which Wikipedia has far too much already). If you're totally stuck on this one then "Conservation threats" would do as a circumlocution, but that is a movement in the direction of longer, weaker, and less tightly expressed, which isn't a good direction of travel. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]