Talk:Erythrina crista-galli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Erythrina crista-galli is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

I translated raíz pivotante as taproot, not sure if that's correct though, could someone confirm? —Keenan Pepper 06:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Also I translated gamostémono as gynostemial, not sure about that either... —Keenan Pepper 15:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I think there is no need to create an especific article to the use of Erythrina crista-galli as the Argentinian national flower. An appointment at the article about the flower is enough in my opinion.--Tonyjeff 19:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

hi, the article about the national flower is solely about that, it doesn't say anything about the tree or the biological aspect of the flower. And i see that putting that article as a section would be out of the scope of the article. I don't see the need to merge them. thanks --Cacuija (my talk) 04:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the purpose of merging this with "National Flower of Argentina"? The flower exists unto itself and in contexts other than the fact that it happens to be the National Flower of Argentina. The suggestion that it be merged almost implies the flower has not value or legitimacy outside its National Flower of Argentina status. I'm from Maryland and wouldn't consider that the Black-eyed Susan page be merged with the State Flower of Maryland page. The Black-eyed Susan did fine for itself eons before we decided to designate it Maryland's State flower. The fact that it's Maryland's flower need only be an incidental side note on Black-eyed Susan page.

PSF

What I mean is that in the article of Erythrina crista-galli it is perfectly possible to include this piece of information, concerning the symbolism that it has for Argentina. Otherwise, we should create separate articles for each object that may be a symbol for some especif group, which is an absurd. Instead of having just one article for Tiger, for instance, there would be about 500 articles about Tiger, each for a meaning of the animal to a especific nation, political group or school of martial arts. Does it sound reasonable? --Tonyjeff 16:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood-- I took the request to merge as a suggestion that a page for Erythrina crista-galli as a species isn't necessary. However, my suggestion would not be to merge, but to delete the "National Flower of Argentina" page altogether-- it's ridiculously specific-- unless there's some reason that this flower's relationship to Argentina is compelling enough to warrant including it. It's a waste to have a page for every flower, bird, tree, etc. - and a second one for each object as a symbol. The Wikipedia should not be that trivial.

PSF

yeah.. it makes sense but you would end up having only 2 articles, one for the Tiger Animal and another one for the Tiger Symbol. REad the article about the argentinian flower and i think it is too specific to include it in the article about the flower.. --Cacuija (my talk) 17:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Merging National Flower of Argentina into Erythrina crista-galli, and placing it into a subsection of it's own, would improve the organization greatly. A redirect could then be placed from National Flower of Argentina to Erythrina crista-galli, aiding navigation, and keeping the appropriate info in one place. --James Fleming 14:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article National Flower of Argentina should be merged into Erythrina crista-galli as the plant itself is the principal matter of the article. It would make clear sense to have a section in the Erythrina article about the plants status as the Flower of Argentina but it need not be more than that. The plant existed al long time before the nation of Argentina was formed.

Cases in point are the Cedar of Lebanon, Cedrus libani, or the Tulip of the Netherlands, neither of which have a separate page regarding their place as national symbols. HOwever, the maple leaf as a symbol of Canada is treated separately as it is not representative of a single species. HelloMojo 11:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the merge motion. Information from National Flower of Argentina can, and should be condensed and added to Erythrina crista-galli. Admins are to do this? Then get to work. Abestrobi 04:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the National Floer article contains a lot of info on the history of such election, which is completelly irrelevant to this article; why would you want to merge? --Mariano(t/c) 12:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I redirect "National Flower of Argentina" here. The fact that Erythinra is mentioned as the national flower in the second paragraph should be enough. The details of how and why it was chosen are of interest only to the committee that picked it and don't justify an article on it. Tocharianne