Talk:List of California native plants

List of botanical gardens, organizations, etc.

I think that the extensive list of nurseries, botanical gardens, and organizations violates our guidelines on Wikipedia not being a repository of links. Those links don't add information beyond that in the links shown in web references section (and in the books). I would propose taking them out. hike395 04:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No response after 2 weeks: I'll revert. hike395 14:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Name of article

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: page not moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

List of California native plants → List of native plants in California Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This article was just moved from "List of California native plants" to the current title. I think the previous title was better because "California native plants" is the most common name for these types of plants. 72Dino (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 72Dino. See, e.g., the California Native Plant Society. I think we should revert the move. —hike395 (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I moved it to the new title since the vast majority of articles with names of this type are of the form "[Topic] in [Country]" or "List of [Topic] in [Country]". The same can apply to sub-national entities. Consistency is a good thing for these matters. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Hike395 and 72Dino. Consistency is good, Alan, but isn't the only factor. The phrase "California native plants" is deeply rooted in the culture and lore of California. That may well not be the case for other areas. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

And here in New Zealand we say "New Zealand native plants". I guess the question is: how much do we bow to local culture versus a global vernacular? Also, in a wider context, given the variants of English, should we have a Wikipedia-wide "wiki-English"? The British and American English language variants in particular are a bit of a pain to administer in Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

When three editors familiar with California usage say so, is when. Similarly, we use American English in articles about New York and British English in articles about London. Not that difficult, really. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

But I am questioning our current practices. Wikipedia is used globally and we have a well documented problem with systemic bias that we should address. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The meaning is different. Spartium junceum is a native plant (native to the western Mediterranean) which grows in California. It is not a California native plant. If you wanted precision, the list should be called List of plants native to California.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree that it cannot be called native. Note that there is native, endemic, introduced, indigenous, invasive, adventive, naturalised... I think "native" is a bit of a sloppy term and is avoided in scientific literature. There actually should be the following articles:

• List of invasive plants in California
• List of introduced plants in California
• List of endemic plants in California
• List of indigenous plants in California

There is some overlap of coarse but it would give a higher degree of accuracy - something we should strive for on Wikipedia. As for List of plants native to California I think it is essentially the same as List of native plants in California. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

(E/c) I don't think we're even being consistent here. While it is true that there are geographic articles that are titles List of mountain ranges of California, this pattern is not true for non-geographic lists, e.g., List of French people as opposed to List of people of France; List of Turkish diplomats as opposed to List of diplomats of Turkey; List of California state parks instead of List of state parks of Caliornia. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA directs us to use five criteria for choosing a name: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. for Naturalness and Conciseness, the former name is better. It really is not clear to me that the new name improves Consistency. Therefore, I still recommend reverting back to List of California native plants. —hike395 (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The two cases for people that you mention is not a valid argument. "French people" is different to "People from France". As for List of California state parks is would argue that it is an aberration in WP naming. The contents of Category:State parks in the United States all need renaming fr consistency. I think we need to add a {{rename}} template to this discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Since we're going to take this as an RM, I'm going to do the "R" of BRD and put it back where it was, since it is clearly controversial.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A sort of BDRD! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - New name is ambiguous, since every plant is native somewhere, which leaves the only criterion as living in California. If there are objections to the current name, List of plants native to California would be more precise, but the current name has the advantage that "California native plant" is a term of art among those with an interest in these plants.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, the renaming of this article to its current name was done boldly without consensus or discussion to reach a consensus. Therefore, based on WP:BRD alone it could be reversed. It appears that is the case.

That being said, as Curtis Clark has stated, a more precise name would be List of plants native to California, as is suggested above; I would not object to that renaming, but its present name is fine as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I came here to say essentially what Curtis Clark said in his first comment. Grammatically, "List of native plants in California" doesn't say that they are native to California. List of plants native to California would be acceptable grammatically—but as someone who is a longtime native in but not to California, the term "Native California Plants" is so commonly used that we should use it here. Online sources also prefer the term "Native California Plants", particularly when describing lists or quantities of plants. First Light (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose As per Curtis and First Light; the 2 titles are not grammatically equivalent, and the meaning of each is different. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Either the original or "List of plants native to California" seems more clear to me. Tdslk (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with the above contributors that the original or "List of plants native to California" are much better options. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Clearly it should be "native to" rather than "native in", if this were the preferred form. Although consistency may seem desirable, Floras are not consistent as to the categories used or the criteria for placing plants in those categories. (How long must a plant have grown wild in an area to be called "native"? Perhaps not a problem in California, but definitely one in the British Isles.) There are very good reasons to use the terminology of reliable sources for that area. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of California native plants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204152251/http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/california_floristic to http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/california_floristic/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308031035/http://www.cnga.org/index.html to http://www.cnga.org/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308031035/http://www.cnga.org/index.html to http://www.cnga.org/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)