User talk:Ichobar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] IUCN Conservation status / Beastie Bot

Hi Ichobar.

I originally wrote Beastie Bot, which added most of the 2006 statuses to species, together with references. (The references were the hard bit). I also designed the status images and added the conservation status parameters to the taxobox. So, I thought I should chime in.

I haven't updated using the 2007 list because I haven't had the time to commit (I was studying full time + a half), ...and no one had asked. So I'd be happy to re-use the existing code for beastie bot, and save Quadell the trouble. In 2006 I had to spider the red list site (downloading every species page individually) because the red list's export option didn't give enough information (particularly references). So I'd be happy to update the code for Beastie Bot and get it going again, and update the references and status system code as well. But I'd really like a straight dump of the whole database, if possible (XML is good). Otherwise I could go through and work out exactly which fields are really important -- Some things that spring to mind in particular are all the details needed for giving proper references, and it would be great if there was some way of distinguishing when a Critically Endangered is Possibly Extinct [or Possibly Extinct in the Wild] (I'm not sure if the database has a field for this). Anyway I'm happy to discuss it.

As for extending "IUCN" to "IUCN Red List", as said by others this might make it a bit long for the taxobox as it stands, but some other solution might be possible, such as replacing the title "Conservation status" with "IUCN Red List status" when it's appropriate. A change like this would probably need some agreement from the community before going ahead though.

Also I designed the "smarties" graphic (the status indicator) without any input from the IUCN and was wondering if anyone in the Red List programme had any feedback on it (or if you'd thought of using it, or something similar). —Pengo 10:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in, Pengo. I'd be happy to either work with you on this, or just let you do it wholesale. My code for Polbot's original function, creating new articles, is at User:Polbot/source/Bio.pl. It's in Perl, though, and I see you use Python, but there may be some useful ideas in there. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the info, Pengo. We've actually already got an XML feed on the RL webserver, but I believe the bit that is missing is the references. The feed was meant for a Google Subscribed Link feature, so it only contains the info that was necessary for that. Of course, we can adapt that feed to include more information, but I doubt we are at the point of adapting it to contain ALL the underlying data. We'll be there some day hopefully soon, but not yet. In the meantime, we can get references and other important data needed within the taxobox dumped into an XML feed.
Regarding Possibly Extinct, that's a relatively new addition and as such I'm not sure yet if we have a field that has been updated for older assessments, but I'll check. There is no such designation as "Possibly Extinct in the Wild", as Possibly Extinct is a flag applied only to CR species.
Regarding the use of "Conservation Status" vs. "IUCN Red List Status", I think the latter would be best when indeed the status being shown is that of the official IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. I'm completely fine with leaving (IUCN) as it is next to the status description, particularly if the heading says "IUCN Red List Status".
As for the "smartie" graphic, I must say that is a job well done. Bravo. Really, it does a very nice job of communicating the category in the context of the other categories in order to communicate the level of risk. Just saying a species is VU-Vulnerable doesn't really mean anything unless you know what is better and what is worse. We are presently designing our own graphic to illustrate the same. Of course, as a fairly large NGO, we have to design one that adheres to institutional communication guidelines utilizing our name, colors, etc. So, in short, yes, we are thinking of using something similar, but not the same. Ichobar (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)