Jump to content

Talk:List of recently extinct species

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Viability

[edit]

Maybe this isn't viable. I mean, we have so many lists about extinction. Are there too many extinctions each year? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also this, a discussion that may have been best here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see Timeline of extinctions. Really, should List of recently extinct species be deleted? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's quality can be improved, I vote for deletion too. A number of mentioned dates are incorrect- or at least inconsistent with the lemma on the same animal 92.110.95.96 (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The way I see it is there are far too many species for the list to be useful. Just look at list of recently extinct birds, it alone has like 1500 species there.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dunkleosteus77 and 92.110.95.96. I think I must agree. Well, it didn't take too long to put together, so no big loss. Perhaps we ought to AfD it to get a broader community view. Maybe they can come up with something, like split it up or something. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article is basically a summary of List of recently extinct mammals, List of recently extinct birds, List of recently extinct plants, etc.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Dunkleosteus77. Well, how many extinct species are there per year? Maybe it could be a one year thing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I posted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Extinction#Thinking of deleting it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of the list is nice, but I think the scope is too broad to handle without some kind of automation. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FunkMonk. Automation, you say? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not something I know much about, but Abyssal has been able to handle very long lists of prehistoric animals with scripts, I believe. Perhaps he has suggestions? I think the names need to be pulled from some external list, if such exists. FunkMonk (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so Abyssal hasn't responded. Shall we get rid of this article? AfD? PROD? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I ignored you guys. I saw that you mentioned me but I couldn't think of anything to say. I've mainly been involved in the creation of script generated lists as an advisor from the paleontology side of things. User:ThaddeusB handled the technology end of things. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not this list should be kept. I like the concept, though. Abyssal (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies necessary, my friend. Thank you for the ThaddeusB ping. Maybe he'll arrive and save this article. But if it ends up extinct, that is not the end of the world either. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, what is "recently"? To me, a food I recently tried for the first time is within the past year or so. In the history of humanity, my entire life is recent. In the history of life on Earth, all of humanity is "recent". If we cannot verifiably answer that basic question, this topic is not long for this world. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:SummerPhDv2.0. Good point. I guess the lead could define it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See List of recently extinct mammals for the "official" definition. Could be copied here. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My next question was going to be "extinct according to who?", but it looks like that covers it as well. Beyond scope, we also have the question of inclusion. We don't pretend to have a complete List of people from New York City, limiting instead to blue-link notable people. I don't know how long a complete list would be here, but I have to imagine it would be huge. Blue-link notable would at least trim it down to a theoretically practical length. (Whether we have the person-hours to build and maintain it is another question entirely.) - SummerPhDv2.0 12:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good input again. So what about some automation of only adding bluelinks from the UN Redlist site which is CC? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of recently extinct species. 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) 04:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_recently_extinct_species&oldid=919061219"