Talk:Deodar tree

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Cedrus deodara. -- Melburnian (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was written in competition with the existing article Cedrus deodara. Deodar Cedar is the more usual "common name".--Wetman (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no competiton involved. I have linked to all the wiki articles related to Cedar but I have brought in more information related to the Indian perspective.--Nvvchar (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge Content should be merged with Cedrus deodara, as they are one and the some thing. --Melburnian (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The origin of the tree is Indian subcontinent and has extensive coverage - area wise and population wise - and botanical details contained in Cedrus deodara have been taken into account in the artcile.The context of this artcile is almost all encompassing. Hence, I suggest that the article as presented be accepted as DYK for further discussions and additions on aspects other than Botanical.--Nvvchar (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems with the article apart from the duplication. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as soon as possible. The same thing. Cedrus deodara could well discuss "aspects other than Botanical", just like Ailanthus altissima does. Colchicum (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If the purpose was to make a new page so in can be included in DYK, this type of motivation can only cause problems resulting in the proliferation of duplicated information all over wikipedia. The new info should be merged. Hardyplants (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is good content at both articles, but no reason for them to be separate. Kingdon (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The distinguishing characters of the various Cedrus should be there, and the rest either at Cedrus deodara or absent (trivia). Lavateraguy (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've discovered that there's also a Christmas Tree Lane article so there's less new material in this article than appears at first sight. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for all the reasons given.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is mentioned in the begining of the above discussions that Deodar cedar is the common name, it may be appropriate to rename the Cedar deodar as "Deodar Cedar" which will be in line with other articles on cedars viz., "Lebanaon cedar" and "Atlas cedar". As regards "discovering" something it was not necessary since the internal link on the article was clearly marked (there is nothing hidden)and there is nothing trivial in this world. The fact that Deodar is native to India and other additional aspects of its worship and Ayurvedic medicinal uses makes it important in the Indian subcontinent. Go ahead and merge it incorporating the good content referred above by Kingdon.I have no problems.--Nvvchar (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for all the reasons above. One species = one article. - Boston (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.