Talk:Cedar

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Plants

This disambiguation page 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

Scent or fragrance

Perfume

It is described in the traditional classification of fragrances, not surprisingly, as woody. Should this be included somehow on the page? – Fred 10:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"correct" == Cedrus and related concepts

There is more on this flamewar at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants and Talk:Juniperus virginiana. Kingdon (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support Kingdon's reversion of MPF's edits 100%--in fact I was debating whether to do the same thing. This is a disambig page, not an article, and MPF's edits to this page rather missed the point of "cedar" as a word (not as a part of a name!) being used (if ambiguously) for various different things. MrDarwin (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally support removing the statement that Cedrus is the "correct" meaning of cedar. The woods of some of the trees listed on this page are better known than the trees themselves, and Cedrus wood is relatively unusual. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New section added about woods. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: speedy moved per Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages JHunterJ (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Cedar (disambiguation) → ? — User:Nadiatalent 14:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I don't know where to put this in the template.) As discussed on the talk page for what is now Cedrus, this page can simply be called "Cedar". Nadiatalent (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to Cedar over redirect. (Redirect currently points to Cedrus) There are many types of cedar. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Woods called cedar

A section that I consider important was recently removed from this page, and a discussion followed at User talk:JHunterJ. The suggested solution of a list article doesn't seem appropriate from what I can see, the lists do not seem to permit useful comments to be appended to list elements, it would just be a list of species names. Also, the trees and plants called cedar would seem to be an even better candidate for removal from the disambiguation page. I don't know what to do about this. Currently there is not even a mention that wood can be called cedar. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would comments be permitted to be appended to list elements? Since the disambiguation page disambiguates ambiguous Wikipedia articles, and the articles are about trees and plants, those are the ambiguous articles that need disambiguating. Is there an ambiguous article (or section of another article not already ambiguous) about a wood? If so, that should certainly be listed here as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd want to put in enough information to immediately show that shingles are not made from Cedrus, guitars are likely to be made from Thuja plicata, without having to click each of the species in turn:

Cedar from Cedrus, was once an important timber in the Mediterranean area, used for building and ship-building, but severely overexploited for thousands of years.
Mexican white cedar from Cupressus lusitanica, comes from a drought-resistant tree that has been widely cultivated for its timber for centuries
Eastern red cedar from Juniperus virginiana, is soft, red, fine-grained, fragrant, and decay-resistant, often used for fence posts
Ceylon cedar from Melia azedarach, is a high-quality timber that resembles teak

...

but the list articles that I know have a simple format that omits any useful disambiguation info, e.g., List of Brachiopod genera:

... There are other list articles that look just like normal pages, but I don't know whether these are likely to be zapped for violating formatting requirements. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested taking the Cedar wood redirect and making it an article/list. I still think that's a good approach. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. Looks sorta like a disambiguation page. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research, Synthesis, and POV

There are many popular naming conventions that do not match the scientific classificiation system (i.e., buffalo/bison). However, we should be careful to avoid the POV position that seeks to re-engineer a little-used term (i.e., thuja) as if it is the popular or "correct" term. In fact, it may be the scientific term, but not the term used in literature. To push a non-used term as if it were the used term, just to help "disambiguate" between "true" cedars and cedars such as the "Western red cedar" is POV, original research, and not allowed under Wikipedia policies.

Wikipedia's policies clearly state that the content here should reflect what outside sources say, not what certain POV editors choose to edit.

A starfish is not a fish, but neither is it a star.Ryoung122 23:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cedrus which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]