Palaeoecology section

edit

Why is it growing so much with rather unrelated information? This is an article about this animal, not about Laramidia. Most of that info should be moved there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply


RfC about adding conservation status to all animals

edit

Should all animals have conservation status added to their speciesbox? 2601:646:4002:D540:B8A3:9D2D:A89F:F219 (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

No, because only recently extinct animals are covered by conservation organisations. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
It is already on species extinct for several hundred years (so not covered by conservation organisations) like Haast's_eagle extinct in 1400 and North African elephant extinct in 300. Where is the line drawn. There is a lack of consistency. 2601:646:4002:D540:B8A3:9D2D:A89F:F219 (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
The line is drawn by whether they're featured on the IUCN redlist or other such system. We as editors don't draw the line. FunkMonk (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I've been repeatedly trying to tell you that giving conservation status to species not already given official conservation status by official conservation organizations like the IUCN is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, but you appear to have a bad habit of becoming selectively illiterate of whatever advice you do not want to accept.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Mr Fink you have serious anger management issues, consider seeing a therapist. 2601:646:4002:D540:B8A3:9D2D:A89F:F219 (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Maybe, instead of being so pompous and arrogantly gung-ho, if you could be assed, instead, to notice that of the hundreds to thousands-years extinct animals officially given conservation status by official conservation organizations, they all range in age from the Late Pleistocene to Early Holocene, you wouldn't need to make such pitiful attempts at snideness to cover your selective illiteracy.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I opened this RfC to get a consistent position across all pages but you seem to be only interested in starting a fight. Get help. 2601:646:4002:D540:B8A3:9D2D:A89F:F219 (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
The Haast Eagle is not on the Redlist or other lists as it has been extinct for several hundred year. Should we be removing the status for those pages? 2601:646:4002:D540:B8A3:9D2D:A89F:F219 (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yes, they should not have conservation status if they're not officially recognized by any official conservation organizations.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Is this RfC specifically about Augustynolophus, or is it broader in scope? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Broader scope, should this RfC be moved somewhere else? 2601:646:4002:D540:B8A3:9D2D:A89F:F219 (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
If it's something you want changed in general, I'd suggest the tree of life or palaeontology projects. But I think it'll be dead on revival. It seems like you just think there shouldn't be inconsistency, which everyone already agrees with. FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
The thing is, if the RfC is just about Augustynolophus, the wording all animals is wrong. If it's broader in scope, it's at the wrong venue. Either way, it needs fixing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply