Talk:List of extinct flora of Australia

Plants Redirect‑class High‑importance

	Plants portal This redirect 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
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia Redirect‑class

	Australia portal List of extinct flora of Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Pimelea spinescens subsp. pubiflora Spiny Rice-flower was rediscovered in September 2005 see: http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/E53EAE6078B397A8CA2571140013B63B/$File/Pimelea+spinescens+ssp+spinescens+red+mar+2006.pdf

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that List of extinct flora of Australia be renamed and moved to List of extinct plants of Australia.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

List of extinct flora of Australia → List of extinct plants of Australia – See AjaxSmack's comprehensive argument at Talk:List of extinct animals of Australia#Requested move. Due to an undiscussed move, this article's name is out of sync with that article, in addition to Category:Lists of extinct plants and Category:Lists of Australian plants. Category:Extinct flora of Australia may be moved along with this article at the closing admin's discretion, or it can be listed for C2D speedy renaming. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC) --BDD (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's entirely in sync with other things, such as Category:Flora of Australia. Rkitko ^(talk) 23:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Yes, see Talk:List of extinct animals of Australia#Requested move for an excellent and relevant case. Agree that the category names should be looked at if this move goes ahead. But resolve this naming issue first, as it's been proposed as a simple move. Andrewa (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per AjaxSmack's convincing argumentation. --RJFF (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on, now! "Flora" and "fauna" are both very common terms, not scientific jargon. To assert otherwise is ridiculous. This is not the Simple English Wikipedia where we strive to make things easy to understand for those of lower education (elementary school) or for those just learning English. Rkitko ^(talk) 14:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, to some extent I agree, because a list of the extinct flora would have to include fossil plants, algae, fossil algae, and various other biota. The page is misnamed, however, since it is restricted to "plants that are considered to have become extinct since the European colonisation", so it doesn't even include fossil plants. I completely agree with Rkitko that flora is a word that belongs in the vocabulary of any English speaker who can handle a bit more than the Simple English encyclopedia. Fauna ditto. The proposed new page name doesn't fix the "only since 1778" problem. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Rkitko. Our threshold is high school-level English. "Flora", like "fauna", also has specific distribution connotations, whereas "plant" does not. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The convincing point in AjaxSmack's argumentation was not that "flora" was incomprehensible, but the consistency with List of extinct plants, List of extinct plants of New Zealand, and Category:Lists of extinct animals (not fauna). --RJFF (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with his arguments concerning consistency, yes. But his argument opens with an appeal to WP:NOTJARGON when even he acknowledges that fauna [and flora] are both more precise than "plants" or "animals". There's also the issue of the arbitrary cut-off Sminthopsis mentioned, which is misleading as the title in no way implies recent (Holocene, and presumably anthropogenic) extinctions. The same problem exists in all the lists, with some arbitrarily including Pleistocene extinctions (but only of certain megafauna), while making no note of what it excludes (a lot). The lists themselves are problematic.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Sminthopsis84. I'm neutral on "plants" vs. "flora" (although it would be nice to settle this globally rather than nickle and dime it), but the suggested new title perpetuates the inaccuracy.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, and animals should be moved back. Eau(W)oo (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]