Talk:Cedrus deodara

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

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was last assessed in March 2012.

Untitled[edit]

I am skeptical about the USDA zones noted in this article. USDA zone 7 is between 0 to +10 degrees F average annual extreme minimum. My local garden center sells a varietal for zone 5. Is there somebody who knows more about the zones who can confirm?

Cedrus deodara also has Ayurvedic medicinal uses.

Proposed name change[edit]

I propose that the name be changed to Deodar. This is the original name, and still most common in use. The 'cedar' qualification is one added by a limited number of references, presumably as a parallel to Atlas cedar, or other 'cedar' names. Imc 10:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was moved to Deodar, and moved back with a comment that it is abbreviated to 'deodar'. I challenge this, trees have names and no surnames. The name is Deodar originally, and in my current references, including Hilliers Manual, and Collins Guide to trees in the British Isles. Online references for instance at [1]. I'm now moving this to the botanic name, which is where it should have been moved in light of recent policy, and amending the article. Imc 16:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is Deodar Cedar in Farjon, also in e.g. Kelsey & Dayton's Standardized Plant Names; treating it so is helpful to indicate what it is (a cedar Cedrus). Yes it is just 'Deodar' in Sanskrit, but Deodar Cedar in English. - MPF 08:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A common name is what it is, the name in general use in English. It is not a poor man's substitute for the botanic name complete with the common name of the genus and the species so the botanist can be happy, only back to front. The common name is deodar. I've also checked all my print references; Mitchell's Collins Guide to Trees, Cleave's Field guide to trees of Britain, Europe and N. America, and Hillier's manual all have deodar. The European Garden Flora has no common names. Just one, Bailey's manual has Deodar Cedar. And finally, it is not 'deodar' in Sanskrit. Imc 19:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree with your point of view above, but even by it, note that of the top ten google hits on the sci name "cedrus deodara", eight use 'deodar cedar', and five only use 'deodar cedar', without even giving the option of just 'deodar'. - MPF 08:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I found this page by typing in Deodar, although I was aware of the scientific name. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Deodar tree[edit]

Oppose A seperate article on Deodar tree would be appropriate to bring out all fcaets of this tree known in particular as the tree of god and popularly known as the tree of the Indian subcontinent.--Nvvchar (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I notice much of the text seems to be the same anyway. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think WP:Content Forking applies. Lavateraguy

(talk) 18:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to see that most of the inputs from my article Deodar tree has been merged into the Cedar deodar article.However, I would like to suggest including a comparative text of the three types of cedars with the gallery of pictures from my article as it would be more informative on the shape of the canopy of the trees. I find that the article is now fairly exhaustive.--Nvvchar (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information on the various cedar varieties is a topic for the Cedar article rather than this article which deals with the single particular species Cedrus deodara. There is already a discussion of the varieties at Cedrus under the "Taxonomy" heading, but if you would like to incorporate any text or images formerly at Deodar tree you can readily access them at this link: [2] --Melburnian (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge done (not by me) Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:MDSTHSE.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:MDSTHSE.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:MDSTHSE.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. I also removed another photo which did not illustrate the tree very well.--Brambleshire (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cedrus deodara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]