Talk:Corolla

Move to Merge this article into Petal

I don't see how much of anything else can be written about Corolla, as it is primarily just a reference to all the petals of a flower. Seems to belong in the article on Petal. Pan Dan 19:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree. Richard001 03:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it makes much more sense to merge the information from petal to corolla, logically, since a petal is part of a corolla but a corolla is not part of a petal. Have petal be a redirect here. Otherwise, keep them separate. Much more information can be added, I'm sure. --Rkitko ^(talk) 07:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but more people would know what a petal is than a corolla, so it would make more sense to merge corolla to petal. BeefRendang 10:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that a merge maybe able to take place. However, I would vote that calyx, sepal, tepal, corolla, and petal should all be merged into perianth as they are all parts of that structure; or perhaps I would simply vote to combine calyx and corolla into perianth. But as Rkitko says, I am certain much more information can be added to each of these articles separately. As BeefRendang says, the words petal and sepal are used a lot and may for that reason benefite from their own articles. I don't see any article that addresses various shapes of the perianth adequately. Peace Earthdirt 20:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support merging them all into perianth. If any single subject warrants its own page it can always be broken off, but there's no point having a hundred puny articles on flower morphology. Richard001 04:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support letting corolla redirect to the Toyota car's page and then deciding what to merge this into.

87.232.54.185 15:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support the merge into perianth, Richard ( see above ) is right. Kotare 08:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts KISS people! Merge it into flower Kotare 05:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging it to flower might be a bit too simple, but we definitely need some amount of merging. We could start by merging this with corolla, then merge the two with the sepal/calyx pair into perianth if there is still no objections. We have separate articles on the stamen and carpel (though gynoecium and androecium also need merging), so an article for the asexual part is probably justified. If not, the next broader subject would be flower morphology, which currently does not exist.

By the way, I think Corolla should still redirect to wherever it is merged to (or at worst a disambiguation). The car will be forgotten in a couple of decades, but the flower part certainly won't. Richard001 08:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the highest selling car of all time. As you know, this is not a dictionary. Notability has to be considered, and the car is unquestionably more notable. I came here because I was trying to find the car page and was irritated by the disambiguation page, as have many others I'm sure. And I agree with your point that the car may be forgotten before the flower part, I suggest in a couple of decades you edit wikipedia to that effect. Sorry I can't sign, my keyboard is screwed. My IP should come up anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.80.111 (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be merged into petal and corolla should redirect directly to the car article with a disambiguation option on that page. No offence, but this article really is small and, to many people, uninteresting. I see 100's of Toyota Corollas every day, but only learned of the biological meaning from this article. The car article is better written and contains WAY more information. I would love to see a hit count on this article versus the car one. 212.2.182.207 20:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page merged?

diff - I completely disagree with this merge and redirect. There didn't appear to be any consensus above and still hundreds of botany pages link here and are now redirected to Toyota Corolla that has no disambig notice at the top of that article. I'm in favor of reinstating the article. --Rkitko ^(talk) 15:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Even if the botanical articles are merged, that means that Corolla should become a disambiguations page with the content currently at Corolla (disambiguation). A word with more than one common meaning should never be a straight redirect. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the merge of Corolla (in the botanical sense) and Petal, I thought we had consensus on some level of merging (there wasn't really consensus on whether to put it all in perianth, or flower, or what, but merging Corolla and Petal seems like a good first step towards whereever this ends up). I don't see a reason for seperate Petal and Corolla articles. Now, about the redirect, there's no consensus on that yet, but I would think that Corolla should be the disambiguation page. The car is known to a lot more people, the botanical usage is also widespread, and there is at least one other, more obscure, meaning. Trying to pick one, and get Template:otheruses (or similar) set up right is likely to be a big tangle of redirects and italicized confusion at the top of every involved page, I would think. Kingdon (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer the page to exist as it used to, saw no problem with it standing on its own. Plus, a lot of articles use a link to corolla for the explanation of what it is. But that's just my preference. I suppose a dab page here wouldn't be terrible, though the redir/otheruses templates are easy to figure out. --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only fair compromise is a disambiguation page 192.122.222.216 (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pliny the elder and etymological fluffstuff

I think that I found enough 1st century stuff to make the article about corolla interesting and big enough to standalone from the petal article. The information is well-cited and well, interesting in how snarky they were in the first century. Is new found and cited material enough to get a new concensus for here? -- carol (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dab page guidelines

You might want to review WP:DAB for disambiguation page guidelines. All the information below the links doesn't belong here. And the disambiguation page should exist at Corolla, which currently redirects here, instead of the title with (disambiguation) in the name. There are more links to corolla, too. --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that corolla should have been a redirection to the car -- it is a great car! I owned one and to this day wish that I had not destroyed the interior by driving too fast down the dirt roads; so it is really not a prejudicial opinion. I was working with what was here. The new stuff on the page is simply incredibly interesting almost ancient history stuff I found while looking for something else. It is too bad that it is too late to name the web stuff here 'wikiplinya' because there is a huge similarity.... -- carol (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Botanical terms are more important than cars. The latter tend to go out of date pretty quickly. Richard001 (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monitor what-links-here

It has been common for people referring to Toyota Corolla to use simply Corolla in articles. It has also been common for people composing articles on plants to use Corolla instead of Corolla (flower). These are the most common origins of what-links-here items that need disambiguation.

As of 2008-04-06, there are <10 articles in what-links-here and those should be exclusively plant-related links.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corolla other than Toyota?

There is a Corolla in the US state of North Carolina and a flower. For everyone they only know the Corolla is the Toyota Corolla is a car made by Toyota Motor Corporation Winnebaggo (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]