Template talk:Conservation status

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)