The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved: insufficient support. DrKiernan (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

"Due to an undiscussed move"? It was moved by the author in March 2007, about six months after she wrote it. At that time, the other article was entitled "Extinct Australian animals". Is your argument really so weak that you need to bolster it with misleading rhetorical flourishes? Hesperian 00:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? No need to be so defensive. I noticed there was a move, it wasn't the result of an RM, and this article's name didn't match another. I hadn't noticed that the article's creator was the one who moved it, but I'm not sure how that would've influenced my decision. Maybe it would be better to move other articles instead, but these are just the facts. --BDD (talk) 00:40, 22 October 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]

• Well, my first comment only pointed out that this list was consistent with our category architecture "Flora of X" (Category:Flora by country). If the argument is that the word flora is jargon and that's why they should all be consistently titled "plants", then this extends to that category scheme and that is what I am strongly opposed to. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, I wasn't aware of those as BDD and AjaxSmack only pointed out the categories of the Lists of extinct plants/animals. Yes, by the same argument for consistency, the extinct list categories should follow the extant categories, rather than the other way around.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:18, 22 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 nickel 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]
• Oppose. Firstly, "flora" is a perfectly good word to use in the context of an encyclopaedia. Secondly, "the flora of X" is a standard term for such a list. It's not exactly the same as "the plants of X" or "the flowers of X", both which would often include a wider range of aliens and cultivated species. However, I also agree that it's misleading to use the phrase "extinct flora" when post-European settlement is meant. To me, Yarravia is an important extinct Australian plant... Peter coxhead (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.