Talk:Loch Lomond Vernal Pool Ecological Reserve

California Mid‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Protected areas Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Image[edit]

This image says for "personal or academic use" on its Commons page--adding it to an encyclopedia article is not personal use, it is worldwide use, and it is not academic use, it is public use. I removed the image from this article, you should post a deletion tag on it or ask someone to remove it from Wikipedia commons for you. --Blechnic (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High importance rating[edit]

I changed the rating from low to high for this article. This vernal pool is habitat for three endangered plant species. One of which, Eryngium constancei, is known in only four locations and has been listed for the longest time of the three species. The other two are: Navarretia pleiantha (many flowered navarretia ) and N. pauciflora (few flowered navarretia), both federally listed in 1997. Marcia Wright (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the California Native Plant Society's endangered species lists you will find hundreds of endemics, many of which are endemic to only a few locations. If every one of these locations rates a high on the plants category, the state of California alone would increase the high category by a few thousands, the US some 50,000, world wide we've made small locations with endangered plants the largest category on Wikipedia. Plants folks on Wikipedia seem to use the high category sparingly for umbrella topics (plant, tree, maybe), and a few major plants (probably thale cress, maybe Amborella). So I changed it back to low. --Blechnic (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, actually, an ecological reserve doesn't fall within the scope of WP:PLANTS, so I removed the banner. We focus mostly on botanists, plant taxa, and topics within botany. I think the two projects that have banners on this page now, WikiProject California and the protected areas WikiProject are the best suited for this article. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 02:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Word choice: extirpation versus extinction[edit]

I'm unsure what would be the correct word for the sentence under section Loch Lomond button celery. The emergency ruling was to prevent the destruction of the plant-that, at that time was the only known population, which would be extinction. But since the 1990s, more populations elsewhere in Lake and Sonoma counties have been identified, hense extirpation. Comments/corrections would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Marcia Wright (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it would be appropriate to explain in the article what you just said. At the time, the Reserve had the only known population, so the ruling was to prevent the extinction of the plant. Since the 1990s, etc. It's relevant, and would only make the article a few sentences longer. — Mudwater^(Talk) 02:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is done, plus some sentence recasting. Thank you. Marcia Wright (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Loch Lomond Vernal Pool Ecological Reserve. 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:

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) 23:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]