Talk:Dalbergia cearensis

Merger with Kingwood (wood)?

 * Oppose, unless the merged article can be written in a way that discourages someone from removing the taxobox and saying "moved Dalbergia cearensis to Kingwood (wood) over redirect: It is a famous wood, not a tree species."--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the principle of distinguishing between plants and products is worth retaining, even if it results in two skimpy articles. (Though I'm sure that both articles could be considerable more detailed.) Lavateraguy (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose as well. The material and the species are best kept separate. See, for example, Mahogany and Swietenia mahagoni. Jafeluv (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment but see also African Blackwood, which is not a separate article from Dalbergia melanoxylon and is a better, more informative article for it. 98.71.246.212 (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, after a closer look it seems that not all mahogany is from swietenia mahagoni, so I guess that was a bad example. Jafeluv (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)