The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Leaning keep. Sandstein 09:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Term has multiple meanings. Adding a disambiguation page will guide people to link the right target?,
It also shows that the 'correct' target from a given context is ambiguous? I've never personally heard of the term 'veteran tree', but discovered it whilst going through dead-end pages here. I've heard of ancient forests in reference to fossil-fuels, and was generally aware some living trees are 'very old'. 21:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
r.e. WP:DABRELATED , all these articles should mention 'ancient tree' (paleobotany could say 'ancient plants (including trees..)'; fossil forrest certainly should. 'veteran tree' should say 'ancient tree' somewhere . etc
|Ancient Tree Guides by the Woodland Trust] (the term ancient tree is visible).
veteran tree also contains the phrase Ancient Tree Hunt - it suggests to me 'veteran tree' is synonymous with 'ancient treee'.
coal#Formation says "At various times in the geologic past, the Earth had dense forests in low-lying wetland areas" - this is referring to "ancient trees" in the fossil sense.
Whilst the material in wikipedia relating to fossils doesn't say 'ancient tree' I can find plenty of web citations where the term is used that way (confirming my memory of it).
MfortyoneA (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
(talk) 21:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but ancient tree in terms of fossilisation is not a common term. I can't find a use of ancient tree in that specific context. TheMagikCow (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really get the nominator's rationale: the lack of a primary topic is precisely what justifies the existence of a dab page, while WP:DABRELATED isn't really relevant when the term in question is a vague synonym of the target. – Uanfala (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel that these are plausible search terms for the items listed - Wikipedia is not a thesaurus. Also fails WP:DABRELATED. TheMagikCow (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ok since the AfD debate what I did was went to hunt down more citations to address the concern you raise; on IRC i was also alerted to some 'DAB solver tool' which can generate dabs from the naming convention; so I've created individual redirects (ancient tree (fossil) etc), with citations in the talk page. It's possible listing these in the disambiguation page will look cleaner. They also made it easier to link to the right one in the cases where I found ancient tree written in existing wikipedia text. My concern was keeping the range of meanings open; 'wikipedia is not a thesaurus', but these dabs/redirects help (IMO) searching, and lay scaffolding for future content improvement. I like finding ways to encode connections in the wikipedia dataset .. the beauty of it is finding (or pointing out) connections between seemingly unrelated areas. "why would anyone care about ancient trees? ah, coal formation!" etc. MfortyoneA (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above. WP:USEFUL to readers, certainly no gain to them from deletion. Ambiguous term. Boleyn (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful dab page. -- 120.17.236.252 (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Boleyn and IP 120.17.236.252. Dabs are kept for allowing non-experts to figure out what they need to know when researching. Disambiguation pages are one of Wikipedia's greatest inventions. In this case, there are several closely allied ideas that need sorting out. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this makes excellent sense as a dab page, given there are several equally likely redirect targets. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Disambiguation pages are used to help the user identify the intended page when there are multiple, similar articles. Take a look at WP:DAB. Also, see a few examples like Joker, or John Smith. This page is really re-creating the "Related Articles" feature that is included as part of many articles--it doesn't belong here.Glendoremus (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the phrase is not uncommon and does in fact cover a number of distinct topics, justifying the disambiguation page. --pmj (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Disambiguation pages are meant to be for ambiguous terms. WP:DAB says: Disambiguation ... is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous. There is nothing ambiguous about "ancient tree"—it always means "very old tree". It cannot mean anything else, unless it's the name of something (a book, a restaurant, etc.); I find none of those.
"Ancient tree" is a commonly used adjectival phrase. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's why we don't have pages for long highway, deep cave, celebrated book, elaborate design, etc. WP:DAB also says: A disambiguation page is not a search index. Delete this page and let the search engine do its work. — Gorthian (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ok; out of interest, if DABs aren't intended for this, is there a guideline-friendly way to encode a search index in the wikipedia database; (I did find citations elsewhere matching my intuition that 'ancient trees' can refer to the fossil context - the reason I originally thought it warranted DAB was wikipedia actually surprised me with the term 'veteran tree'. My 'word association' is "fossil fuels<->ancient sunlight,ancient trees,.."). e.g would it be appropriate to make a wiktionary entry, which points back at those topics? MfortyoneA (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MfortyoneA, I'm not sure what you mean by "encode a search index in the wikipedia database". All you need to do is type "ancient tree" (with the quotation marks) in the Wikipedia search box, and you will find the occurrences of that phrase throughout the project or in whatever namespace you indicate.— Gorthian (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
what I mean is - looking for material on 'ancient trees', I'm personally after Fossils. My word association is ancient-fossils<->ancient plants <-> ancient-sunlight <-> solar energy <-> fossil fuels <-> fossil energy .'ancient=extinct, not living' (hence my surprise in seeing the term used for living trees that are just 'very old' - furthermore wikipedia chooses the title veteran for these, not ancient) Whilst not everyone has the same view, other citations confirm I didn't make that connection spuriously; other people do have it (and very few people in this world are truly unique.. the associations I have will have come from exposure to certain sources in a certain order). There are so many instances where a simple text search is not sufficient; This is just one case. "load bearing" was another (again, there's a chain of word association,conceptual association). It's the same difficulty I'm running into elsewhere, but perhaps between the mechanisms in wikipedia & it's sister projects, there might be a better way to deal with it. It should be possible to encode these connections in such a way that the precision and versatility of wikipedia navigation is improved. The concept certainly doesn't warrant an article - it really is just a chain of associations around a phrase. It might be 'see alsos' on a glossary entry.. I dont know what the best way is MfortyoneA (talk)
Delete. None of the blue links on the dab page mention the term "ancient tree" except for Woodland Trust which talks about a Ancient Tree Hunt and Forum. The page as it stands is WP:OR and misleading. The purpose of a dab page is to guide readers to the article they are seeking, not to substitute for the search engine when searching for a little-used phrase. There is no article on WP about "ancient trees", much less several that need disambiguation. At the very least, make it a redirect to Woodland Trust#Ancient Tree Hunt, the closest thing we got. Station1 (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of all the terms listed on that page, only veteran tree is a plausible destination. For example, I find it highly implausible for some search for "ancient tree" when he or she means "paleobotany". He or she would search "study of trees" instead. —Codename Lisa (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ok, but consider my notes in the talk:ancient tree. My own intuition was "ancient trees <-> fossil fuels" ; I made the dab because wikipedia surprised me with contexts I wasn't expecting. I've found and given citations that use the term in this context, e.g. see Ancient Tree Fossil Beds and Fossil of Ancient Tree. Ancient Giant Trees Found Petrified In Thailand The point is, different people come encounter terms in different ways. Language (and search terms) are highly ambiguous. MfortyoneA (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I don't particularly care whether this is deleted or not, but it is not a valid disambiguation page. If it is kept it should be marked as a stub or as something else such as a broad concept article. older ≠ wiser 12:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the delete !voters above states that "ancient tree" could only refer to a veteran tree, while another one claims it can plausibly be associated only with the Ancient tree hunt. This does show the term is ambiguous and that's what disambiguation pages are for after all. As for the fossils, there definitely ought to be some relevant link on the dab page, either in an entry of itself, or – if that is more MOS-compliant – in a "see also" section. – Uanfala (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What bugs me here is people are denying the connection to fossils (which is how the word association works in my head). This connection is citable, my mind didn't generate it spuriously or uniquely; and it seems to me wikipedia should be able to show you connections you weren't aware of.. thats the magic of the exploratory hyperlinked structure, compared to linear books and simple text search. Now I can see this goes against the letter of the law on wikipedia DAB guidelines.. but is there another way to encode these connections formally within wikipedia's structure?MfortyoneA (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't go against the letter of the law, and links like this on dab pages are explicitly permitted by MOS:DABSEEALSO points 1 and 5. – Uanfala (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable as there are multiple books written about it. Valid sources include:
Ancient Trees: Trees that live for a thousand years
Ancient Trees of the National Trust
World Tree Story: History and Legend of the World's Ancient Trees
Development and improvement of the page is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I lost a bet to FleetCommand. He had wagered that before the end of this month I 'see a [person] who says "Notability" in a FFD, TFD, MFD or DabFD.' I took the wager because I put it on the account of his generally ill faith in any and all Wikipedians. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "notable" has expanded its meaning and is now synonymous with "worth keeping"? – Uanfala (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of ancient trees is notable. This means that there are sources which cover it in detail by that title. This means that readers should reasonably expect to find something here about it. That means that the title should be a blue link. This means that there are sensible alternatives to deletion. This means that we should keep the page for further development by means of ordinary editing rather than deleting it. Deleting the page would give us a red link, destroy the edit history and remove the various ideas which the page currently suggests for this title. That would be a disruptive outcome and so I oppose it. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uanalfa and Andrew D. Evidenlty this is a plausible search term on which we have relevant pages. There could be tweaks formatting wise, which would be strongly preferable to deletion.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.