Talk:Conservation status

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
To-do list for Conservation status: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh


Here are some tasks you can do:

    Contents

    [edit] 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?

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] "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

    [edit] 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.

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] Later points

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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):

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

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

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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. Brianjd | 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)

    [edit] 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)

    Excellent! I'll be interested to hear what develops. —Pengo talk · contribs 23:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/n/Talk%7EConservation_status_c7cc.html"