Talk:IUCN Red List critically endangered species (Animalia)

inline citations
I don´t understand what you mean with "inline citations". It´s the whole list of species copied from the Red Book. Do you like the same citation 1700 times, one in each name of specie? Please, be more specifics. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Extinct species listed
The articles Leiostyla abbreviata  and Leiostyla gibba say that this animals are extinct. Why they appear in this list? --Wiki erudito (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Another Extinct Species Listed
The article Dexteria floridana says that this animal is extinct. This listing should be moved to the list corresponding to extinct animals, and should be removed from this list. (11/25/2017) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.192.236.92 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Anas nesiotis
Anas nesiotis (under "Birds") is incorrectly on this list. The link itself provides proof: "By 2011 the species has firmly been returned to Campbell Island, resulting in a reclassification of its threat status to Endangered." Hoohoolian (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

division into subheadings
Should we reorganise this listing phylogenetically to make it a little easier to find stuff? The most obvious bit of paraphyletitude, which I found really awkward (and perhaps even a bit grating) was "Birds" being listed as a separate class rather than under "Reptilia" (surely the last surviving descendants of the dinosaurs deserve at least this much in honour of their noble ancestry). There are a couple other, more minor (or at least, less complicated) things that might warrant changing. For example, speaking of "Birds" and "Crocodylia"...I went ahead and changed "Birds" to "Aves" since it was the only group I could find that used listed under its common name. (I forgot to log in before I hit save, so the change is anonymous (or rather, IP-nymous).) There are also some spelling issues — among them, I'm pretty sure the proper spelling of the crocs/gators/caimans/gharials/et al. taxon is "Crocodilia," not "Crocodylia."

This stuff may seem nitpicky but it actually can make a real difference for people trying to research a topic, especially online where search engines may or may not catch misspelled terms. Mia229 (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Years' too late reply, but you might still be around or others might have the same questions. The taxa tree used here is unmodified from how the IUCN present their data. As the IUCN's focus is on the ranks of species and subspecies, presumably they have kept the other ranks relatively flat and simple like this for consistency over time and ease of data management. Reorganising the data to be phylogenetically correct would be a major undertaking. It would also be much more difficult to display. For starters, not only would birds be placed under reptiles, but the reptiles and all other tetrapods would be under lobe-finned fish (Sarcopterygii), creating a much deeper tree which would not be easy or intuitive to navigate. The bigger issue though is that unless the list is meticulously maintained by hand (which it isn't), someone will be required to regenerate this list in order to update it (which I might do sometime soon), and all the phylogenetic fixes will be lost. A better solution might be to write some introductory paragraphs for the article explaining how the phylogeny used by the IUCN differs from that which is accepted. If someone (you?) wanted to do that, that would be a great addition.
 * As for Crocodylia, it is the term the IUCN uses. It seems to be an accepted spelling. They use Aves too, but it was changed to birds by a later Wikipedia editor, so I guess you were just putting it back to how it was when the list was originally generated.
 * Anyone researching the topic should be advised to use data straight from the IUCN, which they have many search and data export options for (which allowed this page to be generated in the first place). —Pengo 00:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary TOC
Each and every division or subdivision has few items and the list itself is almost like a TOC itself, it just makes the page longer.

Yaron Shahrabani (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The article does look to be in need of some thorough restruturing.♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 04:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Images
This page lacks images of some of the species under consideration. I will try to add some. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 04:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)