Template talk:Conservation status

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Extinction This template is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this template, or visit the project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction articles

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've noticed that the images have vanished (EX; EW etc (can be seen from Arctic Fox)) from the least concern page and have been replaced by links. Why? Who has changed the template? If you have changed it please comment back and state your reason. Thanks ThomasRules 16:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The facts on the side bar are wrong 180.95.19.8 (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. RudolfRed (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the ongoing discussion on Talk:Conservation status#Capitalisation of conservation statuses.
Coreyemotela (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Or maybe I just need some help. In any event, I have a species that is, as of 2012^[update] "At Risk - Naturally Uncommon." There is no 'At Risk' nor 'Naturally Uncommon' category, so shoul I put "RR = Range Restricted?" Does the template need to be updated? I can't even find the template, nor am I the best at coding, but I'd appreciate someone helping me sort this all out. Nessie (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The NZTCS was revised in 2007 to have different categories, and it's bananas that Wikipedia is still using the 2002 system. I may be doing a Wikipedian in Residence stretch at DOC later this year, and updating the NZTCS template (and all the articles that use it, groan) will be a high priority. We'll probably need an edit-a-thon to do it all. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't figure out how to display "Not Threatened" under the NZTCS system; I assumed it would be NT, but apparently that's an invalid status. What's the abbreviation? Thanks for the help! Nicholaswei (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gderrin: any ideas? Apologies for the ping.Nicholaswei (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Nicholaswei:. Sorry - no idea. I've seen "IUCN:least concern" used on a couple of pages. If there was a way to display "Not Threatened" or "Least Concern" I don't think I'd use it, especially on orchids. I think it might give some stupid people a licence to collect the plant from the wild (although "Critically Endangered" sometimes does the same thing!). "Not Threatened" is listed in the NZTCS manual (p.27).^[1] BTW, apologies not at all necessary - I appreciate your work. Gderrin (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gderrin: yeah, that makes sense; it's probably for the better that NT seems to be unavailable. And thank you for all the help you given me and the work you do on Wikipedia! Nicholaswei (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made a graphic for "Not Threatened" when I redid the NZTCS graphics (see all the c:Category:NZTCS Category diagrams); the script should display the following when NT is chosen:

I don't know why it's not showing. Best to talk to whoever maintains the code. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checking that code led down a bit of a rabbit hole, anyway allowed statuses for NZTCS and all other conservation status systems are eventually defined in Template:Taxobox/species. If there's something you want to be done there, you can do it yourself, or feel free to ask if you need any help doing it. BFG (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've flagged this infobox to be converted to a sidebar. An WP:INFOBOX summarizes key facts about the page's subject where each infobox [can] show information relevant to the article subject, but this isn't really doing that, it's more of a WP:SIDEBAR grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles. The only custom field is the image. Belbury (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]