Talk:Major Oak

Weight

I think 23 tons has to be a major underestimate. If wood is the same weight as water it means it has to be less than a sixtieth of the volume of the General Sherman tree - and that's if you don't count the roots, which you surely should. Oliver Chettle 18:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, wood is lighter than water, it floats on it after all. The General Sherman is a Sequoia, which is a much larger species of oak. I find the size estimation reasonable. ZPS102 23:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• What the heck are you talking about? Sequoia trees are evergreens. They are most definitely NOT oak trees... They're closer to pine or fir than oak.24.254.163.150 (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"It floats on it after all" - Weight has relatively little to do with the ability to float on water. Displacement of water influences the ability of an object to float on water. Under your reasoning, the steel used to fabricate ocean liners must be lighter than water... it floats on it after all. 80.72.157.154 (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but technically, the steel is not what's floating - it's the air inside the ship. The steel just acts as a barrier between the air and the water. Take that same volume of steel and compress it into a solid block, and it'll quickly sink to the bottom. Wood is indeed lighter than water, but mostly because it is porous and filled with tiny pockets of air. Heavily compressed wood will still sink, as will wood recently cut from a living tree (as it still has water in it). How any of this would help to determine the weight of the tree, I don't know. Lurlock (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"English Oak" Quercus robur?

Is it so taken for granted that the tree is Q. robur that its oak species doesn't need to be mentioned in the article? Or is this an oversight? --Wetman (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Q. robur? Still not mentioned. Are we so rich then in oak species in America that we have to specify species. --Wetman (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Named after Major Hayman Rooke

I have added a small piece to the above article involving a blue plaque, cited by hard copy of a local newspaper. This states the earlier name was "Queen's Oak", renamed to "Major's Oak" which then became Major Oak. None of this is present in this article, where the lede statement "Its name originates from Major Hayman Rooke's description of it in 1790." is a bit vague.

I can't find an online version of the local 'paper article, but here is a local blog with comprehensive description of the blue plaque ceremony, including mention of the prior name.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Nature

Should we be propping up trees? SquashEngineer (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Sources indicate that this was not a good idea as it prevented the tree from shedding limbs during droughts. Other measures such as concrete reinforcement may have been counter-productive too. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Suggestions - has the major oak been pollarded, hence its shape?

Any suggestions please. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Age estimate

This source, the Ultimate Handbook Guide to Nottingham, suggests the tree is 800 - 1200 years old. Does the Woodland Trust source here, which says 800 - 1000 years, take precedence? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The range indicates that no-one is quite sure. Counting rings would require felling and they don't plan to do that. Measuring the girth is another technique but that's uncertain because of the possible fusing. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

As the age is uncertain, we should give the full range of estimates and that's 800-1200. I have cited the New York Times for this. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I wonder where they got their information. It's a shame the article is paywalled. They have a really good main image! (by permission of RSPB, it seems). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The 1,200 figure is common -- see BBC, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be. If only we had a video of Beornwulf of Mercia planting it... Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Folk song

"The Major Oak" is a modern protest folk song by Beans On Toast (real name Jay McAllister), see , here,here and here. Not sure which of his 18 studio albums it appears on. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Recent death?

Is the typical recent death tag necessary in this case? The infobox doesn't actually specify a person or animal, if I recall. I'm curious about Wikipedia's policy in this sort of situation. ~2026-35421-78 (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

"Trees are people too, you know!" Except they're not, of course. The tag is aligned with the possible appearance of this article as a "recent death" on the Main page - see WP:ITN/Candidates (tag has been removed now anyway) Martinevans123 (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Tense

"The Major Oak was a large English oak..." Was? It still is. A dead person is a corpse, but a dead tree is still a tree. Opera hat (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

For the purposes of Wikipedia, it was. MOS:WAS explicitly applies to dead subjects. The tree is dead ergo we refer to it in the past tense. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I did read the MOS before posting and I think you are misinterpreting it. It says "subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist, such as deceased people". Using the past tense suggests that the tree is no longer there, like the Sycamore Gap tree. The Armley Hippo and Lucy and Sue are all very dead, but their remains still "meaningfully exist" and their articles are in the present tense. Opera hat (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I quite agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The name "Armley Hippo" today specifically refers to the skeleton, not the hippopotamus that once inhabited it. So do the titles "Lucy (hominid)" and "Sue (dinosaur)". Your argument is invalid. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 16:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Trees and not necessarily exactly like hippos, though? Nor ancient hominids or dinosaurs? Parts of Lucy (described in the article: "is a collection of several hundred pieces of fossilized bone...) and Sue ("is one of the largest, most extensive, and best preserved Tyrannosaurus rex fossils ever found)" still exist, or we would never have known about them. The preserved head of Simon Sudbury exists: it is still kept in a cupboard at St Gregory's Church, Sudbury. Simon is dead. And so is his head. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Stop. You are deliberately missing the point. The head of Simon Sudbury is not an organism independent of his stomach or lungs or nerves. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 17:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

It's dead. But it still "is". Just like the tree. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC) (and I'm deliberately putting my point, thanks)

@Opera hat: I have removed the {{Dubious}} that followed the "was". See Howard's reply above. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 15:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The full advice is this: "Generally, use past tense only for past events and for subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist, such as deceased people or defunct companies. Use past tense for articles about periodicals no longer produced, with common-sense exceptions." I'm really not sure about subjects in the natural world, including trees. We talk about extinct volcanoes in the present tense? Dead skin cells exist in the present tense as household dust? I suspect that for many people the tree still exists in the present tense as a dead tree. The felling of a tree, such as with the Sycamore Gap tree, seems much more final, as it was cut into two distinct parts. But with this one, I'm not so sure. Perhaps that advice needs looking at? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The subject of this article is the tree "Major Oak", which was notable in life but has since died. A tree is a biological organism which can live and die, just like a human or any other animal. A volcano is not an individual organism, neither are skin cells. This article is also not about a fossil or other dead remain of a once living creature. It is about a tree which was known and notable in life as "Major Oak", not long after its death as an object of scientific research such as Ötzi. We do not refer to Hachikō in present tense because his remains are on public display in taxidermy. Using past tense for the tree aligns completely with the MOS. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Lucy is a collection of fossilized bones. I think MOS needs to be tweaked. If we wait long enough, will the Major Oak come back into present tense? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Major Oak is different because it was actually known and notable as "Major Oak" during its lifetime; it was not found and named long after it had already died. We should therefore never refer to it in present tense. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

If you wish to tweak MOS, the talk page is here. In the meanwhile, it currently affirms and confirms that the past tense is correct for this article. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you may be right to say that, although I'm not convinced by the two examples it gives: "deceased people" or "defunct companies". I'm really not sure that the oak tree is now any "less meaningful". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

And we can stop the hundreds of tourists who will now flock and see it because it's now more famous? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how those tourists can travel back in time to stop it from being already famous and well-known during its lifetime. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The commercial opportunities for that might not be so attractive. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Has anyone suggested selling off bags of logs? We need someone handy with a chainsaw

Present tense is plainly and obviously correct, both per common usage, common sense, and per the MOS, as the tree continues to meaningfully exist as standing deadwood. It is a thing people can go see. A tree is not a person (nor even an animal). It is possible that past tense should be used when discussing the tree's life, as in the tree was 1200 years old, however, this is also unclear and could be more clearly written like the tree was 1200 years old at the time of its death. NYT and the Guardian use such a mix of past and present tense, while the BBC uses entirely present tense. —BrechtBro (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, reliable sources might be more important that MOS (... is such a thing possible?) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Separation Tree is another article where the subject's trunk remains standing as a snag, and uses the present tense. Every other entry in Category:2010s individual tree deaths and Category:2020s individual tree deaths is felled, fallen, or collapsed and uses the past tense. —BrechtBro (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with BrechtBro. The tree still exists while its roots, trunk and branches are still in situ. A large tree like this is a complex ecosystem and this one is being left intact deliberately to continue the natural process. The signage and visitors will continue indefinitely and so, for most practical purposes, it's still a going concern. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

It's hard to say what the correct way to do this is. The tree still exists to a meaningful extent, as it is still a tourist attraction and standing. But if this is actually meant to be past tense, then why is the Sycamore gap tree in past tense? That tree is still technically alive, it's just not standing anymore... hence why we use past tense. The Major Oak on the other hand IS standing, which should account for something. I mean the only noticeable difference for this tree between last year and this year is that it doesn't produce leaves anymore. That's really all there is to it, it's otherwise the same thing as it has been.

Having now articulated it, I think present tense is the most logical way we can go about this. Nobody talks about the Major Oak in terms of its life, we talk about it as a tree. And because it is still a tree, I think the present tense makes sense here. That seems to be the logic used for when the Sycamore gap tree was illegally felled, since we use past tense because it stopped existing to a meaningful extent, unlike this tree here. So in the end, it seems only logical we keep it present tense when discussing the tree itself, but regarding the organism, we shall use past tense. This page isn't just about the organism exclusively, it's also about the monument, which still exists. I hope that makes sense. MountainJew6150 (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It's notable that our article Christmas tree uses the present tense, though all Christmas trees are technically dead. So it seems that, by convention and tradition, being alive is considered less of a defining feature for trees than it would be for people. One could argue against that convention and tradition, but is that really the right hill to die on? Gawaon (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

See WT:MOS#Talk:Major Oak § Tense. Good luck because I am unsuscribing myself. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 17:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for opening. So I assume you're subscribing there instead. I see you're unsubscribing there too. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps we should be wholly guided by the custodians, RSPB who have said they believe it's dead. The source in the article is this 8-minute video. But I noticed straight away that spokesperson Chloe Ryder says "The Major Oak is a marvel..." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

What about: "The Major Oak is a large English oak (Quercus robur), now considered to have died, near Edwinstowe..."? (or ".. believed to have died" etc.) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Our MOS does not tell us what to do under every imaginable circumstance. Our general guide is normal English usage, such as the famous description of the Norwegian Blue: "'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!" NebY (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Monty Python is famously known as an authority on the English language. We may as well begin dropping our H's as in the skit too. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Such disrespect! But the sketch works because it is, dropped aitches aside, good English.

The Major Oak is a dead tree; it is in Sherwood Forest. There are dead trees all over the forest and the country. They are often not cut down and removed because dead trees play a major role in the local ecosystem. NebY (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Anyone got a dodgy-looking Mackintosh? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Driveby comment: I see this mostly as MOS vs common sense. Yes, to be honest, it should be "was" according to MOS (it has "or", not "and" between "dead" and "no longer meaningfully exist"). However, "is" is the common sense - the tree IS still there. So I just say WP:IAR it. byteflush _Talk 23:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, "is" seems the right form, as long as the tree is still standing and hasn't been reduced to firewood. For clarity, the first sentence could be amended to "The Major Oak is a large dead English oak". Gawaon (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I was going to suggest exactly this wording. I support this proposal. Jfire (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I find is better here. A reasonable reading of the MOS supports this, as long as the tree is still standing but if IAR proves a better justification then so be it. Some parts of the article should be updated to clarify whether particular facts apply to the tree now or prior to its death. For example, at Major Oak § Description, I assume the tree's height and girth have not changed significantly since its death but I have to assume dead trees weigh less as they don't hold so much water and eventually start to decay. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

There is now quite a large discussion at WT:MOS#Talk:Major Oak § Tense. The two easiest options seem to be:

1. Leave as it is: "The Major Oak is a large English oak..."
2. Insert the word dead: The Major Oak is a large dead English oak..."

Can we reach some consensus on which is best, or do we need a RFC? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

So it seems the tense issue is effectively settled? And has anyone objected to the proposed addition of "dead"? Gawaon (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think lethargilistic, in their long contribution over there, has actually objected, but seems to have an alternative suggestion about the opening sentence. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I support the latter option, "...is a large dead..." which seems the easiest way to handle it. Re: weight, size, etc, these should probably always have been pegged to specific dates and measures anyway and should be qualified in some way, as they were not static when the tree was alive (unlike a person, a tree does not finish growing), and the canopy size was in decline from the peak listed in the article. —BrechtBro (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of is a large dead tree as being dead is not crucial to its notability or identity. This might suggest that it was always notable for being dead. However the fact that it is dead should be mentioned in the second sentence or elsewhere in the lead. Perhaps: The Major Oak is a large English oak (Quercus robur) near Edwinstowe, in the midst of Sherwood Forest, Nottinghamshire, England. At the time of its death in 2026, it was Tthought to be between 800 and 1,200 years old… We might use prior to its death rather than at the time of its death instead. Alternatively, a sentence could be inserted at the end of the lead describing the recent confirmation of its death. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree, but "is dead" is nevertheless an appropriate quick fix pending a further rewrite. —BrechtBro (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

That would be fine with me too. Gawaon (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

However the fact that it is dead should be mentioned in the second sentence or elsewhere in the lead.
That was already added two days before this discussion started. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I think "is" is the right choice here. The question is more complicated than it is for people or animals, because whether a person or an animal is alive or dead is a question that can usually be answered pretty easily and definitively. That's not the case for trees. Take, for instance, the example of the Sycamore Gap tree, which was felled in 2023. The Wikipedia article describes it in past tense, even though at least one more recent source considers it not quite dead. Renerpho (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Was but include precise language in the first lead paragraph explaining to readers that the dead tree is still there to be visited. Akin to Vladimir Lenin, who died but is still there as a visible corpse, and many similar cases concerning Christian saints. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Am led to believe he's more a shade of dark mahogany, rather than light oak... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean Lenin or the Major? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Post-close comment

The result of this discussion was original discussion re-opened. There was no response or action taken at AN and the thread has now been archived: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive381#Request to review talk page discussion closure. Everyone except the temp account disagreed with the original closure. Now that this has gone stale, it may be better to just go through the normal editing process or start a fresh discussion with reference to the one above. But a close that was inaccurate and unnecessary should be reversed, whether or not editors pick up the discussion above or in a new thread, or not at all. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I do not agree that there was consensus for the verbiage is a large dead English oak or anything similar in the first sentence. I also don't have the energy to fight it. The "close" by the temp account was improper. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Not sure one extra word counts as "verbiage". But you're right, there was no ostensible consensus to close this, especially by an unknown temp editor account. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The original question was about tense, and that question has been addressed. If you want me to take out the part about "dead" from the closure comments, I'm happy to do that, but the "is" vs "was" debate has absolutely been flogged to death (yes, pun). ~2026-34502-67 (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't need closing, closing halts progress, and your feeling that this discussion which extends, as usual, beyond the word used in the section header has "been flooged to death" doesn't justify intervention. Your close was bold but not called for, neither by request or by WP:WHENCLOSE. Please accept the rejection of your bold edit and self-revert. NebY (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I only suggested use of "dead" as part of the phrase "is a large dead English oak". To say "was a large dead English oak" doesn't really make sense, suggesting that it no longer exists at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for someone to state what part of the debate was not fully concluded, or what specifically was an unfair summary. Just linking to a document in WP namespace doesn't amount to an argument. ~2026-34502-67 (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

For one thing I was expecting some input from @Lethargilistic:, who has contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Major Oak#Tense (closed yesterday by Redrose64 per WP:MULTI). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

If additional comments, even weeks or months later, might be helpful, then don't close the conversation. Most conversations do not need to be closed.

If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. While closing a contentious discussion may help to "formalize" a consensus, for uncontentious topics, the unclosed discussion whose outcome is obvious can be referenced directly as consensus; closing the latter type of discussions has little to no benefit and may prevent newcomers to the discussion from expressing novel opinions and drastically altering the consensus. Meanwhile, restarting a discussion to facilitate such innovations is often more energy-consuming than simply leaving the obvious, uncontentious discussion unclosed.

Intervening to close a discussion where this mode of resolution is not customary may prove to be incendiary instead of clarifying. NebY (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It did not require a close in the first place and your close misstated consensus. I see that we were moving towards a rough consensus for is but, although that is my preferred outcome, I'm not convinced even that was entirely settled. The discussion had veered but it was hardly off-topic, as editors were actively discussing alternative approaches to accurately describing the tree's current status beyond a simplistic choice of one tense or the other applied to the entire article. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, thank you, Myceteae, for providing a properly argued complaint that I can actually respond to. The major problem I see is that as long as there is a tag placed in the first line of the article linking to the discussion, there is a significant risk the discussion will never end because new commenters will keep pouring in. I'm willing to listen to suggestions of how we can address that problem, and actually let this discussion come to some sort of conclusion (in time, if needed). As a suggestion, might it be possible to re-structure (emphasis on structure) the debate to focus on the points that are not already effectively concluded? This particular disussion seems to be at the exact point of breaking up into multiple threads-within-threads that quickly become disconnected universes, and nobody seems to have taken up the task of setting up subsections to address specific more focused proposals or questions. So, can we successfully re-focus this? ~2026-34502-67 (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you going to unclose? I'm really not sure what "subsections" you might be thinking of. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

1. Okay, let's try and do this in well-organised fashion. I still believe the consensus in favour of "is" is clear, both numerically and on the strength of the arguments. So I believe that part of the closure should remain. If you want me to write some kind of "consensus can change" thing into the closure, I can do that. If the three of you also believe that the issue of whether "dead" should be used was not decided, then as originally proposed, I can remove that from the closure summary. So let me know on those points.
2. I would also like the principle to be upheld that the discussion currently (as indicated by activity over the last few days) has enough participants.
3. So, on to the heart of the matter. Can I ask that you extract whatever parts of the discussion you can identify that should be continued, into dedicated subsections with headings reflecting the proposals or questions? That's the only way I can see that we can maintain forward momentum. I'll then see how that affects the hatted section, and make alterations that seem appropriate. Also let me know how you want to proceed w.r.t. point 1. ~2026-34502-67 (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   Sorry, but I really don't think you should be "making alterations" to the hatted section. And I asked you a pretty simple question. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, if the consensus is to leave the section unchanged, that's still fine with me. ~2026-34502-67 (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I've requested that an uninvolved admin assess consensus here. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Closing discussions such as this is unwonted; closing this discussion is unwanted and unwarranted. NebY (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to have the {{discuss}} tag removed from the lead and to refocus the discussion. I think we can continue that here. I do think you should reverse your close. At a minimum, if it is to remain "closed", the statement must be updated to reflect that the discussion has shifted and continues. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The tag has remained removed. That's all that was needed. No, there's no call to retrospectively restructure the discussion, obscure its development for anyone reading it for the first time or rereading it, or move responses out of context. NebY (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright. I'm going to close this meta-discussion and re-open the main discussion. Any editor is will then be free to respond to comments in the original thread or start a new sub-thread, if they think it will be helpful, to organize the next phase of the discussion. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I reopened the original discussion and was reverted by ~2026-34502-67 (talk · contribs) before I could close this. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I will make a request at WP:AN that an uninvolved editor review the situation and take or recommend further action. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Request to review talk page discussion closure —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Relatedly, I have made a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase#Major Oak for pending changes- or semi-protection due to repeat editing on the page by unregistered users related to tense requiring reversion. I agree that the close was improper and unnecessary. —BrechtBro (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Noting that the request was declined Special:Permalink/1360702127#Major_Oak —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, while that seemed to be the direction the discussion was taking, the close by a temporary account seems unnecessary and premature. The reverting of the reopening is even more so. Gawaon (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Update after 4 days: The discussion seems to have slowed down or even stopped, so maybe it's now best to let the close stand? Though it was arguably premature, it reflects the status quo on the page, and if anyone wants further changes, opening a new discussion would make their arguments more accessible and keep the discussion focused. Gawaon (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I would still prefer that we just re-open it, whether or not anyone else contributes to the thread. There appears to unanimous agreement except for the one temporary account who started and perpetuated this mess. The closeting statement is inaccurate. This discussion did not require a formal close nor was it ready to be closed. Thus I don't think it makes sense to write an amended close. The fact that the discussion has now gone stale is really a separate issue. I agree that, at this point, it would make sense to just engage in the editing process or start a new, focused thread. But closes are supposed to be meaningful and accurate, and leaving a bad one in place is misleading to anyone who comes along later and wants to understand the state of consensus. Outside of RMs and other formal discussions, article talk page discussions are rarely closed. The mere existence of a close implies either a level of consensus or controversy, or both, that is simply not present here. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

This is back at AN, for anyone wondering why the second closing statement contradicts the first: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request to review talk page closures (2nd time) and subsequent actions. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Wasn't there a fire inside the tree?

I can remember reading in a 1950s edition of Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable about famous English oak trees, that early in the 20th century a group "of schoolgirls" lit a fire inside the tree (apparently to cook tea?) and caused major damage to the Major Oak. If someone has a "Brewer's", is it mentioned there or is my memory, so to speak, barking up a wrong tree and confusing it with another oak?Cloptonson (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Good call! This source says "arsonists" in 1982. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. I still wonder if the 'arsonists' had predecessors. I understood the incident I have mentioned happened in the period 1900-1930.Cloptonson (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The tree is mentioned in a different Dictionary of Phrase and Fable here, amongst a lot of other oaks. But no mention of any arson attack. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I notice the page shown mentions the tree I was thinking of - Robin Hood's Larder - where the fire happened, though confusingly it places the incident as "late last century" - when was the edition published?Cloptonson (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

But I also found this: "Towards the end of the 1800s, the tree was badly burned. This fire started when some schoolgirls were boiling a kettle inside the hollow trunk. In 1913, the tree was damaged by another fire, this time started by picnickers."? Maybe not the most reliable source. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

That clicked with my memory, I realise it was barking up the wrong tree, Robin Hood's Larder has its own article anyway. I am sure if it HAD been the Major Oak that incident would have made news for posterity in 1913.Cloptonson (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, but I think the 1982 incident deserves an addition. Am a bit surprised it's not mentioned at all in the RSPB video. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I have added this in.Cloptonson (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks, Cloptonson. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

A large dead tree

I'm hoping we can revisit this. The first sentence of the article currently reads:

The Major Oak is a large dead English oak (Quercus robur) near Edwinstowe, in the midst of Sherwood Forest, Nottinghamshire, England.

There is no dispute as to the accuracy of this description and I would even concede that being dead is a defining characteristic of Major Oak today, but I'd like to move dead into the second or third sentence of the lead. The current wording is unusual and rather jarring. It seems to suggest that being dead has always been a defining characteristic and/or is the primary source of the tree's notability. I would compare this to defining birds as dinosaurs in the opening sentence. Thoughts? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't think we must use the word dead specifically in the second or third sentence. Just that, explaining that the tree is dead early in the lead but outside of the first sentence would be an improvement. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the lede already states that the tree has died. Just mention it there? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:48, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, honestly, my preference is to just remove "dead" and call it good. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

In my understanding, trees in the wild are usually understood to be alive (Christmas trees are a different matter), so the fact that this one isn't is a major characteristic that should be established quickly. In the second sentence might still be soon enough, but in the second paragraph is definitively too late. Otherwise, we risk confusing our readers. Gawaon (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

How about this (I'll remove formatting for simplicity):

−

The Major Oak is a large dead English oak (Quercus robur) near Edwinstowe, in the midst of Sherwood Forest, Nottinghamshire, England. Thought to be between 800 and 1,200 years old, it weighs an estimated 23 long tons (23 t) and had a canopy of 92 feet (28 m) at its peak. According to local folklore, it was the shelter of Robin Hood and his Merry Men.

+

The Major Oak is a large English oak (Quercus robur) near Edwinstowe, in the midst of Sherwood Forest, Nottinghamshire, England. It was thought to be between 800 and 1,200 years old at the time of its death, which was confirmed in 2026. It weighs an estimated 23 long tons (23 t) and had a canopy of 92 feet (28 m) at its peak. According to local folklore, it was the shelter of Robin Hood and his Merry Men.

This could be reworked; just trying to throw out an idea. The second paragraph will need to be reworked if the death is to be brought into the first paragraph. Alternatively, I think this could be introduced in the second paragraph, as it is now, but rewritten so the focus is on the death and not the announcement by the Royal Society. The lead is quite short, which is nice, and I don't think the second paragraph is a bad place for this information, but the way the second paragraph is worded does 'bury' this information a bit. I think the association with Robin Hood lore is more important than the fact that Major Oak is now dead, but I can go either way with this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively:

−

The Major Oak is a large dead English oak (Quercus robur) near Edwinstowe, in the midst of Sherwood Forest, Nottinghamshire, England. Thought to be between 800 and 1,200 years old, it weighs an estimated 23 long tons (23 t) and had a canopy of 92 feet (28 m) at its peak. According to local folklore, it was the shelter of Robin Hood and his Merry Men.

+

The Major Oak is a large English oak (Quercus robur) near Edwinstowe, in the midst of Sherwood Forest, Nottinghamshire, England. Thought to be between 800 and 1,200 years old, Major Oak was confirmed to be dead in June 2026. It weighs an estimated 23 long tons (23 t) and had a canopy of 92 feet (28 m) at its peak. According to local folklore, it was the shelter of Robin Hood and his Merry Men.

Not crazy about this either. One thing I want to be careful of with the wording is that its death was confirmed in June 2026, which is different from it died in June 2026. I'm avoiding ambiguous phrasing like confirmed to have died in June 2026. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

How do you feel about connecting the clauses in the middle more?

Major Oak was thought to be between 800 and 1,200 years old before its death was confirmed in June 2026.

The downside I can see from this is that a reader may read this to mean that after its death was confirmed, Major Oak's estimated lifespan is no longer between 800–1,200 years. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

We could use something like

... when its death was confirmed in June 2026

or

... at the time its death was confirmed ...

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, something like that could work, but frankly, it still seems like an attempt to smuggle the fact that the tree is dead into the article (mentioning "its death" merely in passing) instead of describing it in the straightforward way ("dead"). With people, we always include years of life in the first sentence, so the reader will see at first glance that the person is dead. For plants and animals that's unusual and the tree's "birthdate" is anyway not known, but I still think that the plain adjective "dead" included in the first mention serves the same purpose, and just as well. It's a solution that doesn't need to be improved on. Gawaon (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree. It's status as a "dead tree" is a defining characteristic of it's current state, and I disagree with the notion that it suggests anything other than it's current state. It's an unusual phrasing but that is reflective of an unusual circumstance, that it is dead while continuing to exist, rather than being a purely lingistuic oddity. I suspsect it would be far more jarring to introduce that the tree is dead later in the paragraph, as that's a change in the tree's ontology, rather than merely being unusual language.

Another angle at addressing this could be to rewrite a later part of the lead, or at least introduce phrasing that makes it clear that the tree has been left standing. —BrechtBro (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I feel strongly that this does need improvement. It is not notable for being dead and hasn't been dead for most of the time it's been notable. I had been thinking earlier about how this compares to biographies of people. The difference is that we have a handy convention of listing the birth and death dates which allows us to avoid jarring openers like Mary Smith is a dead Canadian politician. What about something like:

The Major Oak is a large English oak (Quercus robur), now considered to have died, near Edwinstowe...

This was suggested by @Martinevans123 in the prior discussion. I would still prefer to move it out of the opening sentence, including following @BrechtBro's alternative suggestion to rework the second paragraph. I don't think we're burying the lead but I do think the second sentence reads funny and we could make its present status more explicit. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

"Now considered to have died" would be an absurd EUPHEMISM. "Queen Elizabeth II, now sadly considered deceased, is well-remembered ..." – no, let's use plain language and just stick to the facts. Gawaon (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, I think you're mistaken when you think that only characteristics a subject is notable for should be mentioned in the lead sentence. For example, we say "Margaret Eleanor Atwood ... is a Canadian novelist, poet, literary critic, and inventor" even though her Canadianness is probably not what she's most notable for and though she might still be notable if she weren't Canadian. Gawaon (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully not repeating Gawaon's points here (with which I agree): the current phrasing is also concise and I suspect it is the least astonishing. Following the thought experiment offers clarity, but hasn't been taken far enough, as we do have the convention to avoid that opener in biographies: imagine Mary Smith was a Canadian politician. She was 80 years old at the time of her death in 2026. Even allowing for the tense change, it doesn't establish that she's dead until the second half of the second sentence - astonishing if you ask me. —BrechtBro (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Second sentence is a little funny - is it a tense thing? - but that doesn't hinge on "is a large dead tree" and can be improved without changing it —BrechtBro (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a response to both of you. Including the nationality is just another standard biography convention. A recurring theme in the #Tense discussion was the extent to which guidelines and conventions for biographies are applicable here, or can serve as a useful model to be adapted. My takeaway was that many of the standard practices for biographies don't work here but do provide some interesting food for thought. But in fairness, I brought up the Canadian politician example. To continue down the biography route for the sake of argument, a common dispute among editors is which key professions or descriptors are listed in the opening sentence. Someone writes James Smith is an Australian singer, actor, architect, and playwright… and then others argue that, well, he only wrote one play and it was a flop and reliable sources don't generally describe him as a playwright. Similarly, when a long-notable person steps into a new role, we don't automatically insert a new descriptor into the opening sentence if it is not considered a major factor in their notability. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I suppose we could get really creative and write The Major Oak (c. 826–1226 – c. 2026). (No, this is not a serious suggestion…} —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I think adjectives like "Canadian" and "large" tell readers something descriptive that isn't necessarily what the subject is notable for, and the difference between that and a profession noun is far more pronounced with "dead" which describes an ontological status. A change in ontological status very different than a change in career.

Imo the current wording follows MOS:FIRST most closely out of what's been discussed, telling the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where and in plain English. When I look at the sentence now, I wonder a little not if "dead" is appropriate, but if there's other key information that should be relayed besides (or instead of) it's size. Reading the article, tree seems more notable for being historic and famous than strictly for its size per se (though we can infer that it's size is related to both its age and its fame), but describing the tree as "large" tells readers what the tree is, the same way saying that it is "dead" does. —BrechtBro (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

If the four of us are at an impasse, we should have an RFC. I think the RFC question is:

Should the opening sentence read "The Major Oak is a large dead English oak (Quercus robur) near Edwinstowe, in the midst of Sherwood Forest, Nottinghamshire, England", versus moving "dead" out of the first clause and introducing the fact of its death elsewhere in the lead?

As always, I appreciate wordsmithing for clarity. I'd like for this to be a straightforward Yes/No RFC, where a "No" leaves open the question of exactly when, where, and how to address this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the wording is sufficient, but my comment will likely be the same as the one below:

When people look up articles of notable trees in the wild, is it more likely that they'll naturally assume that these trees are alive or dead? If it's the former, then I think using dead as an attributive adjective as close as possible to the beginning of the article is better. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Tenryuu, I read your initial reply as agreeing that opening with large dead English oak is not great, and I read that and your subsequent contributions here as agreeing with me that various alternative approaches to the current wording would all be preferable. Did I misunderstand? I agree that the facts of its death should be established early on, it's just the particular wording now in the first sentence that I object to. As for what most readers assume about trees in the wild, I think that is the right question, but I'm not sure what the right answer is for our purposes. I suspect most people understand that trees are living organisms but don't routinely give a lot of thought to the status of any given tree. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Quick wordsmithing demos (RL intrudes): "is a large oak tree, now dead, which stands in Sherwood Forest"; "is a large English oak (Quercus robur), now dead, near Edwinstowe"; "... now technically dead ..."; "now nominally dead". But tbh I think there are two reasons "large dead" is jarrring; it's a little unusual, but only because the fact is a little unusual, and a string of four adjectives "large dead English oak tree" is often too much; "large dead oak tree" might do better, and the parenthetical "Quercus robur" is a stumbling block in the first sentence. NebY (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Though it looks like an adjective, "English oak" (the current phrasing doesn't include "tree" in the first graf, surprisingly) is a compound noun. —BrechtBro (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Myceteae: Have you encountered other editors here who clearly want to move the word out of the first sentence? Gawaon (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Myceteae: I offered proposed wording for different scenarios; I'm not married to either yours or Gawaon's stance. I'm thinking for when a reader reads this article for the first time, are they going to assume that Major Oak is alive or will they think otherwise? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gawaon – Mostly, I understood the discussion to be unfinished. In response to my comment here, @BrechtBro said they agreed with my objection and described the current wording as an appropriate quick fix pending a further rewrite. Your response there indicated that alternative wording would at be at least as good. And now @NebY has chimed in to also call it the wording jarring.

@Tenryuu, again, I think that is a good question, although a better question is whether the current opening statement and totality of the lead is the best possible way to present the information, or whether it can be improved. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)