Talk:Ecnomiohyla rabborum

GAN
I really liked this article. Nominated it to GA. Tomer T (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll help out with the review process.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  00:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Ecnomiohyla rabborum.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Ecnomiohyla rabborum.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 10, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-11-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ecnomiohyla rabborum. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111222170605/http://www.zooatlanta.org/home/animals/amphibians/rabbs_fringe_limbed_treefrog to http://www.zooatlanta.org/home/animals/amphibians/rabbs_fringe_limbed_treefrog
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120524060207/http://www.zooatlanta.org/home/article_content/leapyear to http://www.zooatlanta.org/home/article_content/leapyear
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120215042053/http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/lists/reintroduced.htm to http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/lists/reintroduced.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111222170605/http://www.zooatlanta.org/home/animals/amphibians/rabbs_fringe_limbed_treefrog to http://www.zooatlanta.org/home/animals/amphibians/rabbs_fringe_limbed_treefrog

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

A need for consistency in Extinction
At this point, I think it's becoming clear that we need some sort of consensus on extinction status, as there are constant alterations, and inconsistencies between the taxobox and text, as well as between various sections of the text. Currently, the status of the frog is that it is totally extinct in captivity and has not been detected in the wild in over a decade (and then only indirectly), thus is "probably extinct". The problem is that a) the IUCN's categorization lacks a "probably extinct" category, b) the last IUCN assessment was in September of 2009, possibly before the captive female died (I can't find a precise date for that event). I completely understand the value of making the IUCN the default for taxoboxes, but in this case, we're left with a very confusing mix of content - the IUCN says "Critically Endangered" in the taxobox, but the first sentence flatly lists it as extinct, and most of the article is about the status of the frog, its apparent extinction, etc. Obviously, we need to follow sources, but we should figure out how to make all of these consistent, and to reflect the general probability and view that it is, indeed, extinct. HCA (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should state it as "critically endangered," as per the IUCN's assessment (at least until they update its status to "extinct"), and then follow up with statements on how mounting evidence strongly suggests it is already extinct?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly, my main concern with that is how much of the press surrounding this species, and consequent article content, has centered on the presumed extinction, often without qualifiers in the press. I'm personally partial to "probably extinct", in spite of violating WP:WEASEL, as a way to thread the needle between the lack of confirmation by the IUCN and the fact that the odds of a different outcome are pretty minuscule.  Hopefully the next IUCN revision will introduce "probably extinct" as a category, but the sad state of affairs is that until then, we'll probably have to make this call on more WP pages. HCA (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you think of my rewrite so far?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely good, thanks! HCA (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Conservation Status and Past/Present Tense
Hi all,

I've noticed the article talks about the last remaining survivor of the species having dies, does this not make this species 'EW' or 'EX' within the Conservation Status? I notice there was talk in 2018 of reviewing the IUCN's status for the species, I am not an expert, but has this been done to confirm or improve this article?

Also, the header paragraphs mention, the species as "...is...", whereas lower down, it's "...was...", so which tense is correct? "Is" does seem to suggest to me the species is not yet extinct or extinct in the wild.

Many thanks

Textualism (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)