Talk:Bush

message: The current setup is that bush is a redirect to shrub, with all the various other meanings (including Australian bush (habitat) and the Bush family) detailed at bush (disambiguation). The latter has almost no pages pointing to it, while most of the pages pointing to bush are referring to one of the meanings other than shrub. I think it would make sense to move the contents of bush (disambiguation) to bush and then deleting bush (disambiguation) as an unnecessary duplication. Anyone any thoughts? (also posting this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life) - MPF 12:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bush, Bush (disambiguation)

message: Why have a Bush page and a Bush (disambiguation) page? Surely the Bush page itself can be a disambig page? It would be more logical and efficient in that manner. Alan Liefting 3 July 2005 06:57 (UTC)
* Move. This is straight-forward. Fredrik | talk 5 July 2005 08:44 (UTC)
* Sure, move. —kooo July 5, 2005 13:39 (UTC)
* Oppose. A big page that I think it needs a title like this to clarify it is a dis-ambiguation page and not a list. Georgia guy 5 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)
* Support the move.  The parenthetical "disambiguation" should be used only when the term (by itself) is the title of (or redirects to) an article pertaining to its most common connotation (with less common meanings sharing a separate disambiguation page).  —Lifeisunfair 6 July 2005 04:06 (UTC)
: The result is moved to Bush. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is redundant. 

message: Why does John Bush redirect here?  Can't it just go to a page for one of the John Bushes linked here, or (even better) a disambiguation page for just John Bushes?  No need to throw everyone with the last name Bush into a page which also addresses the plant. Drjayphd 05:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sensible comment. I have ended the redirect and set up John Bush as a disambiguation page. Xn4 01:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnecessary redirection

message: "Mentally weak son?" I'm sure that bush has no son with middle name like "Sperm a tank", and he does not have a son at all. I'm removing it.162.84.162.177 (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  George w. bush has no son 

message: Shurb In Bold Text demonstrates the liberal bais and sophomoric nature of Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.245.241 (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: How should we treat the entry/entries for "bushing"? Currently Bushing is a dab page listing several components with the name; as far as I can see, the article about only one of them – Bushing (bearing) explicitly mentions "bush" as a synonym. Bushing (isolator) doesn't, but it does use at one point in the text the word "bush" for the subject of the article. Given that all the listed components seem somewhat similar, and the fact that dictionaries (I've checked the OED) seem to give a very broad definition for "bush" as a component, I'm inclined to believe the two words are used interchangeably for the several components with the name. Is that the case? – Uanfala (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "Bush" is chiefly a British English word for what is commonly referred to in American (and less frequently British) English as a bushing. Perhaps that is exactly how it should be described at this page. General Ization Talk   00:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Another might be "A (chiefly British) term for any of several types of fittings to mount, connect or insulate rotating components, pipes, electrical wires or other components; see bushing." General Ization Talk   01:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've incorporated your suggestion , although I've trimmed the description (dab entries ought to be brief), and moved the link to the start (generally easier on the readers). – Uanfala (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, American companies tend to use bushing, UK uses either. Greglocock (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bushing 

message: I've recently moved the entry for The bush out of the list of most common meanings at the top, because it doesn't appear to be particularly favoured by user searches (its link was only the sixth most clicked one for March). Are there any long-term significance reasons for having it at the top?
Another question is: which section should the entry be found in. The article is sort of about a type of place (so readers may expect to find it in the "Places" section), but it's also more basically an article about a word (in which case readers may not expect it to be in the "Places" section and will instead look for it in the "Other uses"). I've tried to reconcile these two conflicting expectations by the usual method – accommodate both by letting the entry appear in both sections. But I have been reverted. Thoughts? – Uanfala (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My thinking is that "the bush" is no more a place than is "the backwoods", "the jungle", or "the swamp". It is a noun that primarily serves the purpose of an adjective, in that it describes a type of place, not a specific place (except as used locally by locals).  Note from our article that "bush" is also used in adjectival form to describe other things, events and people associated with "the bush", wherever it happens to be. Therefore I suggest it belongs where it is, under "Other uses", rather than under "Places". I do not think it belongs in both. General Ization Talk   03:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The bush