Talk:Conservation status

Environment Mid‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biology Mid‑importance

	Biology portal Conservation status is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Preliminary discussions, Feb 2004

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:

How do we tie this in with the old conservation status page, which was devoted more-or-less completely to ecoregions, and which is now at ecoregion conservation status?
Where does this page belong?
- Here, in the article namespace? It is, after all, presenting information to the reader that is relevant and important.
- Or in the Wikipedia namespace? It is, in a sense, a "working document": if not quite one that we 'pedia editors refer to in the process of writing articles, at least one that refers to the Wikipedia.
Should we include the colour-coding as outlined in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life? Maybe in tabular form?

Content

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)

"Categories" in list; related pages

I think this should be its own article in the articlespace, but I don't like the Wikipedia-specific reference. [See "early 2005" heading below.] Instead I think we should standardize on some widely-accepted classification system external to our little world here. So far the Red List seems to more or less fit that bill. We could list those categories here, develop a set of colors (one color for each category) and then link the taxoboxes here (under the word 'status'). Why not link directly to IUCN Red List you may ask? Simple - most organisms are not on the list. Their categories would just be something that we copy. --mav 10:00, 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)

Ah, OK. I would be fine with that so long as there is a one-to-one relationship with each Red List category (the IUCN names are a bit odd - yours are better). --mav

Is there any reason we should not combine the two categories that translate, essentially, to we don't know? (But, come to think of it, prvided they fit in the boxes OK, perhaps there is no reason not to keep them.) Tannin

I guess combining the two makes sense. It does mean we will lose some info (whether or not an Unclassified organism is Data Deficient or Not Evaluated), but I don't think the lost data is that important. A 'see text' would take care of the lost data issue. --mav

For reference the red list categories are

Extinct;

Extinct in the Wild;

Critically Endangered

Endangered;

Vulnerable;

Lower Risk;

Data Deficient;

Not Evaluated.

so we also differ in that we combine DD and not evaluated into "unclassified"? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:09, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The maintainer of this webpage has sucked out all the species listed as extinct in the wild in the 2002 redlist. Maybe an appropiate example can be taken from there? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:15, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm .... For the mammals, we have:

Egyptian Barbary Sheep (what is its current status?)
Prewalski's Horse (hasn't this been reintrodced?)
Saudi Gazelle (I don't know)
Tammar Wallaby (reintroduced)
Black-footed Ferret (reintroduced)

Perhaps there is a clearer example to be found among the birds - but none of them are species I'm familiar with. Tannin

Yes - it would be nice to have a couple examples per classification. I've already converted Extinct and Extinct in wild to the new format to serve as examples. --mav

Domesticated animals

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.

Endangered species

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)

Maybe not actually... this page is the target of all status links in the (newly expanded) tree of life taxoboxes.. may be better to keep separate? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:26, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Pete, check out the list of pages lined to Endangered species, it is huge . . . and most of the species linked to it, don't have any link to Conservation status - MPF 21:54, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Endangered_species

MPF - I don't think that is a good idea. The endangered status is just one of the classifications. --mav

Hi Maveric149, in a strict sense yes, but the Endangered species page has been used as a list & link for all categories on a general, not specific basis MPF 21:54, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Later points

Homo floresiensis

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)

"Prehistoric" if in taxobox, "subfossil" in discussion. Dysmorodrepanis 02:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small edits in early 2005

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):

The following conservation status categories are recommended for use in Wikipedia entries. They are loosely based on the IUCN categories.
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Taxobox_Usage#Conservation_status for templates

Now that I have discovered this, I may give it a few more inward links.

Robin Patterson 00:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Changes to Red List categories

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)

Space name

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)

Which system are we using?

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)

We're using Wikipedia's own system. The Wikipedia:Conservation status page (recently split out from this one) says we're using a system that is 'loosely based' on the Red List (1994). The Red List categories have changed since, and the Wikipedia categories have been expanded. Presumably, we have some relinking to do. -- Wisq 13:12, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

South African assessment system

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)[reply]

Excellent! I'll be interested to hear what develops. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 23:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Domestic animals" isn't a conservation status, is it?

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)[reply]

Yes,it's a silly status, and is only used on wikipedia and not by others The golden hamster is an example of a species that's both domesticated and threatened with extinction in the wild. —Pengo 10:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

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)[reply]

Yep, It's not only possible. They've done it on the hebrew wiki.. e.g. he:שימפנזה מצוי. —Pengo 04:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human conservation status

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)[reply]

We shouldn't. While humans are definitely "Least concern", no one has assessed us as such, and so it shouldn't be given. —Pengo 05:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why there is no "no concern at all" or "needs popuplation control" at this non-neutral scale?

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)[reply]

The categories simply are not designed for the task of considering pest species. "Least concern" is similar to "no concern at all", but no species is beyond the threat of extinction. Consider the Passenger Pigeon which was once extremely common. Note that it is possible for a species to become endangered even when it is a pest or domesticated elsewhere in the world. For example, even though it is commonly kept as a pet, the axolotl is critically endangered because its natural habitat is being heavily degraded by urbanization. —Pengo 05:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions for "near threatened" and "least concern"

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)[reply]

Capitalisation of conservation stati

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).[reply]

Here's one possible answer (or food for thought): "endangered" can mean many things, while "Endangered" to the IUCN means something very clear and codified. It gets messier when statuses from different agencies are used, thus to the IUCN, "Threatened" is a group of statuses that includes "Critically Endangered", "Endangered", and "Vulnerable", while to the Endangered Species Act, "Threatened" is a status distinct from "Endangered" (as explained in Threatened species) Since "threatened" and "Threatened" can imply different meanings, in this case I believe that capitalizing statuses is more informative to the readers, regardless of what the manual of style says (Common sense and exceptions may apply: the 5th fundamental principle of Wikipedia after all is Wikipedia does not have firm rules). A hypothetical example in which I believe selective capitalization clarifies things: "The spotted foo frog is threatened by habitat-loss and invasive species, and is especially vulnerable to pollution; thus due to steep declines the species is listed as Vulnerable by the IUCN, and as Threatened by the ESA." --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we capitalise "Threatened" both when it is a UICN status and when it is an ESA status, it does not help. We could also use sentence case all the time; because the only thing that make it clear is either a mention of the classification agency ("listed as vulnerable by the IUCN") or a direct link to the page on the status (listed as vulnerable) or both. What do you think? Coreyemotela (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Coreyemotela, I've pondered this issue before too, and I'm inclined to agree with you. Nonetheless, since this would affect styling on thousands of pages, have you considered taking this question to the MOS for a centralized discussion? You might find a few people there with opinions about capitalizing things. Tdslk (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I posted a message on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalisation of the conservation statuses of biological species advertise this discussion. Coreyemotela (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The same effect would by had by putting them in italics, but I agree that in this case a distinction of some sort is essential for clarity. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes categories are considered to be proper nouns and sometimes they are not. In this case "Threatened" means to me that some organization has decided that whatever is being considered is on their Threatened list. If it just says "threatened", I only assume the normal English meaning of the word. In this case I think capitalizing the word adds significant meaning, so I'd go for capitalization when it is indicating membership in a named list or category. SchreiberBike talk 01:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What some organization decides to put on a list doesn't magically make a new proper noun for encyclopedic purpose. Coreymotela's solution is the obvious one: Specific who says it's endangered/threatened/whatever: "listed as vulnerable by the IUCN", with whatever links we need there. A statement like "this species is endangered" isn't somehow immunte from the requirements for clarity and verifiability. Don't capitalize, just be specific. People have really got to get over this mania for capitalizing Everything That Seems Important to Them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a difference between Capitalizing Everything That Seems Important and capitalizing something because (1) it's a specific reference or noun and/or (2) that's the manner in which the body/entity responsible for its introduction and/or meaning presents it...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As most opinions expressed here, together with the Manual of Style, argue against unnecessary and unjustified capitalisation, I modified the articles about conservation statuses today. Coreyemotela (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Concur with Coreyemotela and SMcCandlish. I swear I made an argument for this several years ago but can't find it for the life of me. Jenks24 (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the capitalization removes the immediate distinction between specific and non-specific reference. That's a mistake. This kind of capitalization isn't the same as "Capitalize Everything That Seems Important" – which, I agree, is mistaken – not least because it doesn't necessarily capitalize everything ("Extinct in the Wild"). Don't throw an established and useful piece of grammar out with the bathwater (so to speak). Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation Dependent

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)[reply]

Two additional categories?

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)[reply]

Those are not IUCN conservation categories. See [1] and [2]. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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).

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) 09:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Threat Classification System (NZTCS) needs updating

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)[reply]

science

which of these animals a mollusk 119.94.73.41 (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only 2600:4041:A3:1D00:1458:F015:ACC:E49B (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wanting Images

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)[reply]