Talk:Major Oak

Plants Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nottinghamshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nottinghamshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire 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.NottinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject NottinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject NottinghamshireNottinghamshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

[Untitled]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nature

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