Talk:Sandalwood

message: I think santalum spicatum should remain it's own article. It specifically describes a species of santalum and as such should be allowed to stay as it is. Sjschen 09:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally sandalwood should be a general article, with separate articles for the several species that contribute wood. Brya 11:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, that's what I meant. I guess I phrased it kinda weird. Sjschen 00:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely. Merging species articles is unacceptable. Snottygobble 01:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Merging

message: Chandan is way too cool a word to merge with any others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.66.169 (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge. Snottygobble 12:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Merge Sjschen 16:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another proposed merge

message: Is it used to make sandals? --WhiteDragon 15:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Sandalwood

message: "Sandalwood oil is very nutritious for the skin and this is what causes the spots and blackheads to be eliminated" - evidence? That claim certainly doesn't fit with the mainstream medical theory of what causes spots...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.135.223 (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Homeopathy stuff

message: I've edited the religious use section a bit--not all bindi in Hinduism are created from sandalwood paste. I omitted the Wiccan mention of a conversion rite completely as it was misleading (sandalwood may be referenced in some initiatory rites, but there isn't a conversion rite per se in most forms of Wiccan liturgy). Overall, the section of religious use could do with more expert  writing (if elaboration is needed at all). --Snowgrouse (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on Buddhism is vague and ambiguous.  What is the "padma (lotus) group?"  There should at least be a link to this in another article.Trashbird1240 (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious uses

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: I have removed claims that a) the removal of Australian Sandalwood trees in particular led to the extinction of the Greater Stick-nest Rat on the Australian mainland, and b) that the nests of the Greater Stick-nest Rat were constructed with Australian Sandalwood as an indispensible element. I have not readily found support for either of these claims; see e.g. http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/WR97056.htm Cstaffa (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greater Stick-nest Rat 

message: See Perfumed called No.1 by Clive Christian, uses Sandalwood.
www.clive.com
Any details appreciated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.59.196 (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Used in the most expensive perfume in the word

message: What is the point of having the term in different languages? Wikipedia is not a dictionary Warrior4321talk 14:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandalwood in different languages 

message: Why is that word in the introduction? Or rather, why is it not linked to an article on hemiparasitism? There's nothing on hemiparasitism in the article on parasitism, either.Tuanomsoc (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Hemiparasitic

message: There are many problems with the article, please bear with me. You may not agree with a particular point, but please consider them individually.
1) As noted above by Warrior4321, translating the topic name into several languages is inappropriate. Wikipedia is not -- and cannot be -- an international dictionary where the local word is given for every item used locally. It's an English encyclopedia.
2) Vandalism. IP 211.30.182.208 introduced six vandalism errors, that I've reverted.
3) Overlinking. Following WP:OVERLINKING, the best choice for Wikilinks are unusual terms that a reader is not likely to recognize. E.g., here's no reason to link "Australia" when most eight-year-olds know what it is from watching TV. Also, if a term is linked once, there's no reason to link it again.
4) WP:PEACOCK language. The Wiki page has a helpful list of words that are liable to be peacock. If a superlative, especially an uncited superlative, can be removed without a major shift to meaning, it should be. Peacock words confuse readers in an encyclopedia into believing there is concrete, factual implication, where in fact it may be simply a literary device or an editor's opinion. Thus phrases such as "valued and treasured", "widely considered" and "very distinctive" are removed.
5) I removed a rediect to Cendana School, which is only related to the article topic etymologically.
6) I removed an external link to http://www.ageless.co.za/herb-sandalwood.htm, a site whose purpose is to sell sandalwood oil, and whose text is dubious, unencyclopedic, and unreferenced. Equally http://www.royalsandal.com is a commercial site with no particular information to add to the article or to what is supplied in the other external references.  
7) The article is largely lacking citations, and about every other sentence could use one, since the topic seems to attract editors who are writing from their personal, local experience. While there's no question sandalwood has religious uses, I'm uncomfortable with statements that a whole religion -- such as Hinduism or Buddhism -- sees sandalwood as "soothing" or "maintaining alertness" -- effects which seem to be in contradiction. Do all branches of Hinduism and Buddhism treat sandalwood the same way? It's certainly not so. Therefore, these broad claims should be qualified and referenced.
8) Price and ecology. I've retained comments about cost, quality and ecology because they need discussion. Very many plants are subject to economic pressures and regulation. It's unclear what makes sandalwood or the extracted oil distinctive.
9) The physical aspects of usage should be spelled out. I'm only familiar with sandalwood as a type of incense stick, but there are apparently other uses. The comment "it is an excellent fixative to enhance the head space of other fragrances" should be explained.
10) I'm confused as to what exactly is considered "genuine" sandalwood. And why some is considered "better". Is there some cross-use of other plants that are "sandalwood-like"? (Here I'm speaking situations similar to Wasabi, where most commercial "Wasabi" is just horseradish, and contains no actual Wasabi root.) 
98.210.208.107 (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Re "true" sandalwood - some seem to think that only S. album qualifies as "genuine" sandalwood.  However, from what I can tell all species in Santalum have the same fragrance characteristics and are commercially interchangeable.  It's more important to distinguish these from other trees with similar aromas that are sometimes also marketed as "sandalwood" but are inferior.  For example, sandalwood furniture retains its fragrance after 200+ years; the others don't.  KarlM (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Correcting many article problems

message: Indian Sandalwood is becoming very rare. Any information on any attempts to create faster growing trees or more productive trees? 
This would be very interesting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.130.41.182 (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetic Modification or Imporvement of Sandalwood Production

message: The chandanam is used be women as a fairness treatment. Makes skin smooth and clear too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.59.22.166 (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Fairness

message: I noticed in the third bulleted item in the section "True sandalwoods", that sandalwood oil is sold by the kilogram (I added the conversion template from kilograms to pounds). It says "20,000 kg (44,000 lbs) per year". I was puzzled that a solid unit of measurement, kilograms, is used for an oil. I thought oil was a liquid and that a liquid unit of measurement would be used. Could someone elucidate this for me?CorinneSD (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit measurement of sandalwood oil 

message: FRAGRANCE OF THE WORLD, SANTALUM ALBUM
QUEEN OF SANDALWOOD, THE INDIAN SANDALWOOD SANTALUM ALBUM  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.160.213 (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books on Indian sandalwood 

message: I feel the claim that sandalwood is the second most expensive wood in the world needs some clarification.  Agar/aloeswood is considerably more expensive than sandalwood.  The source listed for this lists sandalwood's _extracted oil_ at approximately $5-6 thousand/kg at the time of its publication in 2012; the agarwood article here on Wikipedia lists the price of "superior pure material" that isn't adulterated at $100 thousand/kg.  Relatedly, the link to this source expired in April.  Should it be updated to a link to the contextual page on Academia.edu (which is the only place I've found the paper) as opposed to a direct link to a PDF that will expire? --Notjerl (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second most expensive wood?