Talk:Lists of IUCN Red List critically endangered species/Archive 1

Archive 1

Redirect problem

Resolved

when I type critically endangered it always gets redirected to endangered unless I capitalize both words. Could someone redirect critically endangered to this page for me since I'm a newbie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallosuchus (talk • contribs)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. —Pengo 04:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Spotted Hyena

Spotted Hyena shows up on this list, but in the actual entry for the animal its conservation status is "lower risk". Which one is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.191.139 (talk • contribs)

I've removed it from the list and fixed its status on the article page. The only reference given for the conservation status is the IUCN (see the IUCN reference on Spotted Hyena), which last assessed the species 10 years ago as LR/cd (conservation dependent). It's possible it's being considered for a different category now, and there's some discussion on its talk page.—Pengo ^{talk · contribs}

List?

Perhaps the list contained in this page should be moved to the list of critically endangered species page? I would do it myself but I don't feel knowledgeable enough about the ins and outs of wikipedia to know if this would be following proper format.

The list of critically endangered species page is actually identical to the vulnerable species page. (All of the species on both pages are actually vulnerable, at least the ones I can verify.) List of critically endangered species should probably be deleted, or eles erased and replaced with what is here at least, unless someone h as a more complete list. I've tried looking at the IUCN red list page but I'm tired and can't navigate it well right now. I'll try looking when I have more time, unless someone hopefully figures this out first. Mahern 06:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

List of critically endangered species is just a copy of this page and doesn't even have as much content, so can basically be redirected. However, this article itself contains virtually no information besides the list. Unless the concept of critical endangered species can be expanded beyond a simple list into at least a few paragraphs of prose we may as well move this article to the other one. Richard001 02:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Chamois

The chamois is listed as Least Concern on its page. Why is it listed here under "critically endangered"?

I've removed it as well as the Sika, as these species are both listed as Least Concern. CecilPL 14:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but we're still left with the White Rhinoceros, which is only Near Threatned.

Move to Category?

Would this list be easier to maintain if it were made a Category? Xiner 00:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It needs to remain list to arrange them into groups and describe the concept. Category:Critically endangered species exists as well though. Richard001 02:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed

I resolved the problem, it was much easier than arguing just to move the smaller page into the larger one, it added a sum total of ten lines and is now fixed. Meissmart 22:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Split?

So, the "Bird" section is incredibly long (150+ species). Would it be worthwhile to split this section off into its own article? -Mukk 23:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The 26 January 2010, I have extracted a list of all critically endangered species marked by the IUCN Red List (see the following link  : http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/search/link/4b5f32c8-f7c53e43), but now the article is extremly long and very hard to edit. It should be split, but I don't know what would be the best solution. Please bring one. - Galmicmi (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Mellinger

Is this a joke? Is this an unusual name for a genuinely endangered type of animal and not simply the name of some person? I think it is likely a joke, but I'm not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.198.3 (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a joke. I removed it. --Mukk 19:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Where should I put these?

I am going through the whole list and I was wondering where to put 'Critically endangered, possibly extinct', 'Not Recognized' and 'Data Deficient' species. Also how can I find out information about the species that don't have wikipedia articles? Through the IUCN website? I am Currently at the Birds: Charadriiformes section. CorpseJester (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Edit: Would the scientific name of a species be preferred to the standard name (or whatever you call it) on the list? Example: 'Numenius borealis' instead of 'Eskimo Curlew'? CorpseJester (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The IUCN database is the usual source for 'conservation status' in taxoboxes. See Wikipedia:Taxobox usage#Conservation status for details of usage. The naming convention for articles about birds is given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Bird names and article titles. -- Donald Albury 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"All American"

User "151.202.98.150" added "All-America" under "See Also". Does this look like vandalism to anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.76.15.150 (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

IUCN Category

The IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria Version 3.1 document contains a detailed description of what critically endangered means. Could some of this information be pulled into this article? Srippon (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Order of headings

There does not seem to be any pattern to the order of the headings. Any thoughts on whther they should be ordered, and if so, what order? -- Donald Albury 10:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Northern Swift Fox

As this fox is no longer considered a subspecies but a geographical variation, is it truly appropriate to have it listed here? I couldn't find it separately listed in IUCN's Red List; however the swift fox is listed as least concern. Redland19 (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A subspecies is basically the same as a geographic variation (at least for animals). You are however right that it is not in the Red List, so it can be deleted. Ucucha 07:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And I went ahead and removed it. I just removed a bunch of Primates from the list yesterday, mainly because they were "Endangered", but not "Critically Endangered", although one or two did not appear on the IUCN Red List at all. Is there general agreement that we are guided by the IUCN Red List for what goes in here? I'm open to using other reliable sources, but I'd be concerned about differing standards on what "critically endangered" means. -- Donald Albury 10:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should only give a few examples and focus on the criteria and implications of the C.E. status. I think it is clear that we should refer to the IUCN Red List: it is clearly the most authoritative and complete measure of conservation status. Ucucha 14:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's already a list in all but name. I would suggest moving it to List of critically endangered species (which is a redirect to this article) and then starting a new article along the lines of Threatened species. -- Donald Albury 16:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Ucucha, I have to disagree about the subspecies vs. geographic variation. Check out the section on criteria under Subspecies. The Northern Swift Fox was darker and smaller; however genetically and behaviourally, they were identical. A wide range of differences are essential to qualify. For example, a bichon frise and a doberman pinscher are two subspecies of dog. A black and tan doberman pinscher and a rust and tan doberman appear different yet are the same subspecies. Redland19 (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for Bichon Frise and Doberman Pinschers being different subspecies of dog? -- Donald Albury

Walia Ibex

Hey,

The Walia Ibex is down on this page, but on its own page it is "only" down as endangered... Anyone know what it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mart the Moor (talk • contribs) 19:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Rodents?

Are there no critically endangered rodents? They form 40% of all mammal species, how can they be entirely absent? Steinbach (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Common Names?

I think it would be nice if species with common names had them in parentheses after the binomial nomenclature. If no one objects I might start working on it. Gyrovagus (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of the information is on the IUCN website, but I think It shouldn't be done for many reasons:

• A species can have one ore more common names while there is always only one binomial name. With the common name, you never know which one is the good one.With the binomial name, you are always sure.
• It would increase the size of the list which is already big.
• If you know the binomial name, you just click on it.If you know one of the common name, you can look for it with the google search tool included with wikipedia.
  • If the article has already been created, it's probable you will find the correspondence with the binomial name on the article.
  • If the article has not already been created, someone who creates it will certainly remember to add in it the binomial name.
• This article is just a list which list threatened species, i think it's main goal is to help wikipedians to creates articles on threatened species which are not yet created and to have a global view on threatened species.It shoouldn't contain any more content.

- Galmicmi (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

These "articles" are absolutely useless to encyclopedia readers without at least a common name in English. Right now it's just a raw data dump (and possibly a copyright violation) that biologists and editors can find elsewhere, in better formats, if desired. I think these should be either deleted or turned into articles about the lists. 68.190.151.103 (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)