Talk:Ti-tree

I'm going to repair this redirect to Tea tree. It includes links to all of the plants that you are spelling Ti-tree]. I just don't see a good reason to have two different articles on the same subject; [[Tea tree is a disambiguation page for full articles on the specific plants you describe here, and a redirect will guarantee that people searching with this spelling will also find those articles.  I'd be happy to discuss this, as I've told you several times on your talk page; please don't just force your change through by reverting, but talk with me about it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the main reason is that Ti-tree is the correct spelling, but only for some of the plants mentioned at Tea tree. Personally, I'm not really sure where this exploration into the reason for the different spelling, and search for an authoritative reference to prove that Ti-tree is the correct spelling (I personally believe it is since I have heard so asserted on tv and/or radio by respectable authorities, probably by Les Hiddins). Since I'm not sure exactly where to take the article, it seems problematic for me to include this information into the existing article, which is imho in the wrong place.


 * I considered moving "tea trea" to here, but that wouldn't work, because there are non-ti-tree tea trees. And until I find an authority that can even make an authoritative statement about a common name (seems difficult, but if there is general agreement among many respectable sources that would be sufficient) then I would have a hard time rearranging the existing article to be readable while including a long discourse on tea vs ti, which people would not be at all interested in if they are wanting to read about Wolfberry.


 * The polite reaction I think, for someone in your situation, would be to simply sit quietly and wait until I have disappeared for sufficient time that it becomes obvious that I have "stopped" work on the article for the time-being, then to examine what I have done and see what you think should be done with it. And certainly, using the discussion page is a good thing.


 * I may not have done this if there was an existing Ti-tree article at all, but in fact there was not even a redirect. So my edits are unlikely to affect anything outside the new [[Ti-tree] article that I have created, and therefore there is no problem imho with you being patient and letting me have a go. Especially since your comments do not show that you have any particular expertise or information to add regarding what I'm trying to tackle.


 * I am the first to admit that my own expertise on the topic is limited, but you should be able to see, even from the amount that I had completed when you first REDIRECTED the page, that the work I am doing is substantial and of-quality. It's not like I vandalised a page and posted slander about people in high places, this is completely stuff-you-can-wait-and-see-what-happens-to-it-stuff, so please kindly be a little more constructive in your methodology. -- Soonstart 12:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss
Please, will you discuss your reasoning rather than reverting? Why do you think there should be two different articles about the same plant? -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would rather finish working on the Ti-tree article for now. Why don't you wait a bit and see. There is no hurry, I don't imagine there are hordes of impatient wikipedians' awaiting a resolution to our quandry.
 * If people remove whole pages, they should at least put in the effort to merge the information into the supposedly "proper" article (yes, I do mean you, I think what you did is the height of rudeness on a wiki). -- Soonstart 11:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The page isn't 'removed,' it all still exists in the history. If there's information in this article that isn't in the existing plant articles, then you are welcome to add it to them.  Is there a good reason to have two articles on the same subject? -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you know that, and as you can see, I know that. But hordes of wikipedia users don't know that, and even greater hordes of wikipedia users don't know how to get to a page that's been redirected-over-the-top-of. There may not be a good reason to have two articles (I think there may be though), but there is certainly a good reason why you should give more than just REDIRECT to the effort.
 * How about, first merge my info into appropriate existing articles, building necessary links between them as needed, then when you redirect, put a comment explaining all that you've done. And before you do all that, give the page a little rest so that whoever (me) is editing it has left and won't become annoyed at having to dig up their copy to continue their work.
 * Not all of us get it all done in a single edit you know, in fact it's bad practice because you end up with edit-conflicts and lost work. -- Soonstart 12:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm having a little trouble taking your criticism of my manners seriously. The way the edit histories show it, I created a redirect and left a short message on your talk page explaining why, and you responded by reverting the change with an edit summary saying "you should eat slime, you have no consideration and do not belong anywhere near to people," but did not explain any reasons on the talk page. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And to respond to the actual point... I have read your sources, but I just don't see the evidence that 'ti-tree' is the one correct spelling of these plants' name; 'tea tree' appears to be just as widely used. If typing 'tea tree' and 'ti tree' and 'ti-tree' all lead to the disambiguation page for the same plants, then users have a better chance of finding the information that they need.  Your reasoning that there needs to be something written about the alternative spellings themselves does not seem persuasive to me, but if the article is more about the spelling disagreement than about the plants, then 'Ti-tree' is not the right name for it, and 'Spelling of ti-tree' might be a more appropriate title and subject for the fully cited article you want to create. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

REDIRECTing again
"The argument that the spelling is correct is difficult to support using internet sources, however it can be supported logically" - WTF? Wikipedia does not publish original research. This whole article is original research. Plus it is wrong - the Australian plant common names database lists only one plant common name containing "ti-tree" or "ti tree" - Leptospermum longifolium (Weeping Ti Tree) - compared to bucketloads of plant common names containing "tea-tree" or "tea tree".

I will now redirect this page to tea tree again. If you think "ti-tree" is a more appropriate spelling, get your argument published in a reputable journal, then come back here and we'll talk.

And if I see another edit summary like this, I will be applying a very long block.

Hesperian 13:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WTF do you mean argument in a proper journal? If there were any arguments-in-a-proper-journal about the correct spelling for Ti tree, don't you think I would have found them by now? I concede, I was wrong. OK? There is no "correct" spelling I can find from "internet verifiable" sources, for the melaleuca/leptospermum genii, full stop. Not, "you were right, tea tree it is", but "I was wrong, ti-tree it is not oh well".


 * There still needs to be a substantial discussion of why and how there are two spellings for melaleuca/leptospermum, and clarification that those two alternatives are equally valid only for those genii, and not for, eg Thea sinensis. I think my format does that, where the original format is hopeless, and yet pedantically, you and your friend endlessly revert my contribution to ZERO. Thanks for that, and try harder next time, please, huh?  -- Soonstart 13:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, gosh. I'm very sorry we couldn't make an exception to our long-established policy of no original research for you, so that you could argue your opinion that "ti-tree" is a better spelling than the far more common "tea tree". Hesperian 23:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well please consider stopping REDIRECTING AGAIN
It just seems stupid to me to have plant's called ti-tree that are NOT also called tea-tree, covered by the one blanket tea tree article, which if you'll have a look is actually substantially incorrect also, and hardly presents any information at all. I mean, "applied to a number of different, unrelated plants" is completely incorrect, there are perhaps hundreds and hundreds of related species, and only three or four odd species that are not related.

I am sorry that Ti-tree is not in some way authoritative, but it is at least AS VALID, in the absence of any definitive, authoritative source to say otherwise, and in the presence of many authoritative sources which use the spelling.

I believe you have taken offense at my response which I gave when I felt similarly offended, and are acting out of indignation, rather than acting in the interests of developing good content. I am sorry for my language, but it was meant to be a somewhat humourous retort to having my work, as it were, swept from under my feet. Did you not read my reply above? What is the urgent issue that you have with Ti-tree existing as an article for a while? Personally, I could care less what you do in the future but while I am here and working on an article that is NOT IN THE WAY OF ANYONE then I would appreciate you to just step off and let me do my own thing with it.

If you can criticise more about the article than my initial belief -- based on a good source which I cannot recall, but I do not form such beliefs based on random naysayers -- that Ti-tree is somehow more "correct" than tea-tree, then I will be impressed.

Again, I will say, if you choose to redirect this page, then PLEASE MERGE THE CONTENT since nobody else is ever going to check under the REDIRECT at the odd spelling of "Ti-tree", unless you make "Ti-tree" the default. ie, if you REDIRECT this and do not completely merge my content elsewhere, then YOU are essentially deleting that content, since I personally am never likely to come back to edit it again, and no-one else would find it.

That is why I was so alarmingly rude in my comment, because PEOPLE LIKE YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT YOU HAVE A DELETERIOUS EFFECT WHEN YOU EFFECTIVELY DELETE GOOD CONTENT FROM WIKIPEDIA, let alone my own personal venting of frustration for having my effort to work here needlessly interrupted by robotic droids who do nothing but implement three-word GOTO statements like a frigging VIC20. 'k? -- Soonstart 13:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on this, which aside from your expressing your frustration, agrees that ti-tree is an alternate spelling with no strong sources indicating that the disambiguation page should be moved here, I'll go ahead and restore the redirect. If there is any content here about these plants that is lacking from the plant-specific articles (I didn't see any, but I could be wrong), please feel free to get it from the history and add it as appropriate to those articles.  Thanks. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)