Talk:flora

Could "fauna" really be regarded as an antonym of "flora"?

/Jonte93 09:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In a word, no. It is a "coordinate term", but that terminology is not widely understood among our contributors. I've been thinking of reviewing these headers. DCDuring TALK 12:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion: February 2022
Rfv-sense: The microorganisms that inhabit some part of the body. An anon is constantly removing this. —Svārtava [t•u•r] 02:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * This sense is trivially verifiable as part of expressions which are in obvious widespread use, like, , , even . As long as we don't have those entries, we need to have this sense at flora, as the constituents of these bodily floras are not actually plants. This, that and the other (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Widespread use. If necessary protect the entry from the repeat offender deleting this def. DCDuring (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Trivially cited in the phrases "bacterial flora" ("of the intestinal tract"; "of the feces" also exists) and "intestinal flora". I was considering protecting the entry and, seeing the call above, have done so. - -sche (discuss) 03:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Additional cites here in the form "the flora of" (the intestine, the caecum, etc). - -sche (discuss) 03:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Closed (out of process) for clear widespread use. No need to waste any time over blatant vandalism. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 09:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not vandalism. Wrong and disruptive, yes, but the perpetrator didn't intend to harm the dictionary or cause trouble. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not vandalism, but they had deleted the definition at least twice with the same prescriptive comment. DCDuring (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)