Jump to content

Template talk:Conservation status

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Giantflightlessbirds (talk | contribs) at 23:55, 19 April 2018 (→New Zealand Threat Classification System (NZTCS) needs updating: Indeed!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Removed "list" links...

I removed all of the links to "list" because all but three of them lead to nowhere. The remaining three can all be reached from the existing links in the corresponding see also section of the appropriate page, if people are looking for lists of the species. I also slightly expanded the width of the box and shrunk the title so that each item now fits on one line. I think it looks a little better this way, but feel free to make further changes if you think those other links were important. --MattWright (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Functional Extinction"

Functional Extinction is neither a wikipedia conservation status classification nor an IUCN Red List classification.[1] In fact the wikipedia article on Functional extinction claims that functionally extinct species should be listed as Critically Endangered or Extinct, but thats unreliable of course. --Jemecki 19:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's not IUCN, nor a "Wikipedia Status", but it's still a "status" of sorts given to animals, such as the Baiji. I've removed it from the list (again) for now anyway. —Pengo talk · contribs 14:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added "Domesticated" Under "Lower Risk"

Since it is used as "conservation status" on several animals (llama, dog, cat, horse) I added it to the template. If there is a specific reason why it shouldn't be there, then feel free to remove it and state the reason. Irish♣Pearl 21:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not meant to be there because it's not an official conservation status used by anyone. Even its use on Wikipedia is contentious. —Pengo 04:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I've noticed that the images have vanished (EX; EW etc (can be seen from Arctic Fox)) from the least concern page and have been replaced by links. Why? Who has changed the template? If you have changed it please comment back and state your reason. Thanks ThomasRules 16:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 2 May 2013

The facts on the side bar are wrong 180.95.19.8 (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. RudolfRed (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Capitalisation of conservation statuses

Please see the ongoing discussion on Talk:Conservation status#Capitalisation of conservation statuses.
Coreyemotela (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

New Zealand Threat Classification System (NZTCS) needs updating

Or maybe I just need some help. In any event, I have a species that is, as of 2012 "At Risk - Naturally Uncommon." There is no 'At Risk' nor 'Naturally Uncommon' category, so shoul I put "RR = Range Restricted?" Does the template need to be updated? I can't even find the template, nor am I the best at coding, but I'd appreciate someone helping me sort this all out. Nessie (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The NZTCS was revised in 2007 to have different categories, and it's bananas that Wikipedia is still using the 2002 system. I may be doing a Wikipedian in Residence stretch at DOC later this year, and updating the NZTCS template (and all the articles

that use it, groan) will be a high priority. We'll probably need an edit-a-thon to do it all. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Conservation_status&oldid=837301491"