Template talk:Species conservation status

DECF

DECF also has an "NT" status, meaning Not Threatened, seen at Atriplex stipitata.--Auric talk 20:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Auric: The Florabase reference says it is NT but doesn't specifiy under what code. The linked page says Under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the Minister for Environment may list species of flora as threatened flora in the categories of critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable if they are considered to be in danger of extinction or otherwise in accordance with the ministerial guidelines. It's not clear if this refers to the DECF system. If the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 deals with DECF, it suggests that they have updated their system from the Z,R,P1,P2,P3,P4 statuses and have moved more in line with the IUCN. Do you have any further information on this? Jts1882 | talk 07:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland's Nature Conservation Act status codes

I've spent some time trying to find the template that provides conservation status data for the taxobox/speciesbox templates. I hope I'm in the right place now, if not please direct me to the right page.

Several of the codes for Queensland's Nature Conservation Act appear to be out of date, with some (such as the status "SL") resulting in an error if it is used in a taxobox/speciesbox. For example, Adiantum atroviride.

How do we fix this? Junglenut |Talk 10:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Junglenut: Where are the new status codes defined? I haven't found a list of codes, but have found a document mentioning the conservation status and these seem to follow the IUCN categories. — Jts1882 | talk 16:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the status codes on this page Junglenut |Talk 20:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Junglenut: I did eventually find that page and made the updates yesterday so it now also accepts the V, E and C codes for the other statuses (while still accepting the more familiar IUCN two-letter codes for those categories). I linked Special least concern and added a category as that has been the practice, but I don't think the red link is useful as I doubt there is enough for an article. An alternative is to redirect to the Least concern, which is mainly about the IUCN category, but could have a short section explaining the SL category in Queensland. None of the mentions of the SL category explain what it is, though. — Jts1882 | talk 06:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jts1882 Thanks for that. I agree its not worth an article on its own. The only explanation I have is an email from the Qld Dept. of Environment and Science with two vaguely-worded sentences. Junglenut |Talk 06:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]