![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
OK, this is just a very rough draft. It needs work. But at least it's a starting point.
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life for important background discussion.
Questions:
We probably should have a couple of example species for each category. I started that, but it needs oversight and more examples. Ideally, as common and as well-known examples as possible. (Is Prewalski's Horse really extinct in the wild - probably not. The Dromedary is an excellent example to use as it illustrates a very important point: there are millions of Dromedaries in the world, and yet the species is nevertheless extinct in the wild as they are all either domesticated or feral. The other example in that category should be a species that unambiguously survives only in zoos.)
Pitch in, team. Tannin 07:22, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'm cool with that. In fact, the categories I used for this first draft are the Red List categories, except that (because the infoboxes are space-critical) I have abbreviated critically endangered to just critical and used the term secure instead of lower risk.
Edit at will! Tannin 10:07, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hmm .... For the mammals, we have:
Perhaps there is a clearer example to be found among the birds - but none of them are species I'm familiar with. Tannin
How are we going to deal with domesticated animals? Shouldn't they have their own status? -- mav 12:26, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
On that note, I've removed dromedaries from the 'extinct in the wild' section until a species of 13 million domestic animals plus a sizable self-sustaining feral population can be explained as being 'extinct in the wild' in any meaningful conservation sense.
I've copied the entire contents of Conservation status across to Endangered species, as most of the existing links about endangered species lead there. I suspect the two pages would be best combined? - MPF 15:58, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Endangered_species
The taxobox in Homo floresiensis said "Fossil", which was wrong -- none of the known specimens are fossilised. But according to this article, "Extinct" is also wrong, since they aren't known in "recent memory". So what should we say??? -- Toby Bartels 23:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hello, folks. I've only just found this impressive article (from its link on cabbage tree). Added some headings above, and rearranged hierarchy accordingly. I expect most of the February questions have been agreed and acted on, but I've not checked more than a couple.
A couple of half-sentences or lines belong on this page rather than in the article (as touched on above - but I don't know what state the article was in when those comments were made). Here they are as copied from there (and soon to be either deleted or modified there):
Now that I have discovered this, I may give it a few more inward links.
Robin Patterson 00:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See 2004 IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria.
We seem to be 'out of date' (or at least 'out of sync') with regards to the IUCN Red List set of categories. I've updated the page there, but the question here is, how does the new set of criteria impact what we do here?
Obviously, fewer species are going to be classified as LR/cd here, because that category has ceased to exist in the Red List and won't be used for classification there any more. (As best I can tell, it was merged into NT, Near Threatened. Certainly the new definition for NT mentions things that are dependent on conservation measures. See Annex 3, second bulleted list, third bullet.)
Near Threatened has been split out to its own category. Least Concern has also been split out, and seems to match up a little better to our Secure.
Otherwise, our set here does seem to be a superset of the Red List criteria. We could keep it, but I'm just wondering what the general consensus is. -- Wisq 17:45, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
Shouldn't be the second part of the content in the "Wikipedia" spacename? I think that this is a guide but no an article. Llull 09:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Based on the article and the discussion above, we are using the IUCN Red List, but the Human article says "secure", which is only mentioned in The Nature Conservancy's system. Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 09:24, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
I have added info on the South African assessment system, but am awaiting details on the ranking system (presently used or proposed to be used) from SANBI - I shall add it when they reply to my writing. The new Institute (it was a thought on paper as recently as when when this article was written :-) ) is the direct descendant of the National Botanic Institute ( Kirstenbosch) and has still to refine procedures for what was previously the uncoordinated work of various agencies and organisations. Centralised manpower and facilities, coordinated projects and improved funding should smooth the scientists' work somewhat. -- Seejyb 21:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't say that being a domesticated animal ensures against extinction, in fact a lack of biodiversity among livestock could lead to entire species dying out if we're not careful. Aren't there also some examples of domesticated animals that have gone extinct? Citizen Premier 04:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
i think it would be nice if putting the mouse over the conservation status would give the meaning of the acronym, not just a link to the picture. i dunno how it can be done... Fdskjs 00:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused about this. I'm assuming only humans will be reading Wikipedia, why do we have a CS? The Fear ( talk) 22:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Mosquitos, rats, et cetera are not threatened by humans, instead they do pose a threat. Or your everyday urban pidgeons, which are outnumbering humans at every substantial city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.140.240.108 ( talk) 02:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
All articles with conservation statuses are linked back to this page, including those that are near threatened or least concern, but this page doesn't explain what those terms are. It seems sensible to me that they should be mentioned here. AndyLandy ( talk) 15:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Could someone explain why the conservation stati are capitalised (e.g. Extinct in the Wild)? They are not proper nouns and should be written in lower case...
Even if the International Union for Conservation of Nature has its own way to write them, here they should follow the guidelines of Wikipedia (
Wikipedia:Manual of Style).
The risk of confusion with anything else is especially low when they are direct links to the detailed article (e.g.
extinct in the wild).
Coreyemotela (
talk)
15:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
The infobox (top-right) and navbox (bottom) both list the term " Conservation Dependent" but the main article text does not mention that classification. This needs to be added somewhere. - dcljr ( talk) 22:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I have seen "Fossil" and "Not Described" listed in various places for IUCN conservation status categories, are these more or less official or otherwise have a widespread consensus on use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.162.30 ( talk) 10:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Conservation status. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Where does one update the template used in {{ speciesbox}} and the like? NZTCS updated their system in 2008, and the ratings in the template(s?) are out of date. Nessie ( talk) 16:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
which of these animals a mollusk 119.94.73.41 ( talk) 08:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
The only 2600:4041:A3:1D00:1458:F015:ACC:E49B ( talk) 03:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone have images of all the conservative statuses (Eg. Being marked on Least Concern) expect for the Critically Endandgered? Cometkeiko ( talk) 14:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
OK, this is just a very rough draft. It needs work. But at least it's a starting point.
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life for important background discussion.
Questions:
We probably should have a couple of example species for each category. I started that, but it needs oversight and more examples. Ideally, as common and as well-known examples as possible. (Is Prewalski's Horse really extinct in the wild - probably not. The Dromedary is an excellent example to use as it illustrates a very important point: there are millions of Dromedaries in the world, and yet the species is nevertheless extinct in the wild as they are all either domesticated or feral. The other example in that category should be a species that unambiguously survives only in zoos.)
Pitch in, team. Tannin 07:22, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'm cool with that. In fact, the categories I used for this first draft are the Red List categories, except that (because the infoboxes are space-critical) I have abbreviated critically endangered to just critical and used the term secure instead of lower risk.
Edit at will! Tannin 10:07, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hmm .... For the mammals, we have:
Perhaps there is a clearer example to be found among the birds - but none of them are species I'm familiar with. Tannin
How are we going to deal with domesticated animals? Shouldn't they have their own status? -- mav 12:26, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
On that note, I've removed dromedaries from the 'extinct in the wild' section until a species of 13 million domestic animals plus a sizable self-sustaining feral population can be explained as being 'extinct in the wild' in any meaningful conservation sense.
I've copied the entire contents of Conservation status across to Endangered species, as most of the existing links about endangered species lead there. I suspect the two pages would be best combined? - MPF 15:58, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Endangered_species
The taxobox in Homo floresiensis said "Fossil", which was wrong -- none of the known specimens are fossilised. But according to this article, "Extinct" is also wrong, since they aren't known in "recent memory". So what should we say??? -- Toby Bartels 23:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hello, folks. I've only just found this impressive article (from its link on cabbage tree). Added some headings above, and rearranged hierarchy accordingly. I expect most of the February questions have been agreed and acted on, but I've not checked more than a couple.
A couple of half-sentences or lines belong on this page rather than in the article (as touched on above - but I don't know what state the article was in when those comments were made). Here they are as copied from there (and soon to be either deleted or modified there):
Now that I have discovered this, I may give it a few more inward links.
Robin Patterson 00:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See 2004 IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria.
We seem to be 'out of date' (or at least 'out of sync') with regards to the IUCN Red List set of categories. I've updated the page there, but the question here is, how does the new set of criteria impact what we do here?
Obviously, fewer species are going to be classified as LR/cd here, because that category has ceased to exist in the Red List and won't be used for classification there any more. (As best I can tell, it was merged into NT, Near Threatened. Certainly the new definition for NT mentions things that are dependent on conservation measures. See Annex 3, second bulleted list, third bullet.)
Near Threatened has been split out to its own category. Least Concern has also been split out, and seems to match up a little better to our Secure.
Otherwise, our set here does seem to be a superset of the Red List criteria. We could keep it, but I'm just wondering what the general consensus is. -- Wisq 17:45, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
Shouldn't be the second part of the content in the "Wikipedia" spacename? I think that this is a guide but no an article. Llull 09:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Based on the article and the discussion above, we are using the IUCN Red List, but the Human article says "secure", which is only mentioned in The Nature Conservancy's system. Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 09:24, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
I have added info on the South African assessment system, but am awaiting details on the ranking system (presently used or proposed to be used) from SANBI - I shall add it when they reply to my writing. The new Institute (it was a thought on paper as recently as when when this article was written :-) ) is the direct descendant of the National Botanic Institute ( Kirstenbosch) and has still to refine procedures for what was previously the uncoordinated work of various agencies and organisations. Centralised manpower and facilities, coordinated projects and improved funding should smooth the scientists' work somewhat. -- Seejyb 21:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't say that being a domesticated animal ensures against extinction, in fact a lack of biodiversity among livestock could lead to entire species dying out if we're not careful. Aren't there also some examples of domesticated animals that have gone extinct? Citizen Premier 04:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
i think it would be nice if putting the mouse over the conservation status would give the meaning of the acronym, not just a link to the picture. i dunno how it can be done... Fdskjs 00:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused about this. I'm assuming only humans will be reading Wikipedia, why do we have a CS? The Fear ( talk) 22:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Mosquitos, rats, et cetera are not threatened by humans, instead they do pose a threat. Or your everyday urban pidgeons, which are outnumbering humans at every substantial city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.140.240.108 ( talk) 02:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
All articles with conservation statuses are linked back to this page, including those that are near threatened or least concern, but this page doesn't explain what those terms are. It seems sensible to me that they should be mentioned here. AndyLandy ( talk) 15:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Could someone explain why the conservation stati are capitalised (e.g. Extinct in the Wild)? They are not proper nouns and should be written in lower case...
Even if the International Union for Conservation of Nature has its own way to write them, here they should follow the guidelines of Wikipedia (
Wikipedia:Manual of Style).
The risk of confusion with anything else is especially low when they are direct links to the detailed article (e.g.
extinct in the wild).
Coreyemotela (
talk)
15:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
The infobox (top-right) and navbox (bottom) both list the term " Conservation Dependent" but the main article text does not mention that classification. This needs to be added somewhere. - dcljr ( talk) 22:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I have seen "Fossil" and "Not Described" listed in various places for IUCN conservation status categories, are these more or less official or otherwise have a widespread consensus on use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.162.30 ( talk) 10:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Conservation status. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Where does one update the template used in {{ speciesbox}} and the like? NZTCS updated their system in 2008, and the ratings in the template(s?) are out of date. Nessie ( talk) 16:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
which of these animals a mollusk 119.94.73.41 ( talk) 08:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
The only 2600:4041:A3:1D00:1458:F015:ACC:E49B ( talk) 03:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone have images of all the conservative statuses (Eg. Being marked on Least Concern) expect for the Critically Endandgered? Cometkeiko ( talk) 14:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)