Talk:List of mammals of Denmark

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of mammals of Denmark. 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/20150924013955/http://www.fmap.ca/ramweb/media/biodiversity_loss/downloads/RegionalExtinctionExamples.pdf to http://www.fmap.ca/ramweb/media/biodiversity_loss/downloads/RegionalExtinctionExamples.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160415090735/http://www.cetacea.de/news/archiv/2005/10/arch051001.shtml to http://www.cetacea.de/news/archiv/2005/10/arch051001.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160415090735/http://www.cetacea.de/news/archiv/2005/10/arch051001.shtml to http://www.cetacea.de/news/archiv/2005/10/arch051001.shtml

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) 07:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

2019 overhaul
I have given the page a major overhaul. These are the key changes: Still to do: I hope you find these changes constructive. JakobT (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Species list updated according to the official records (Dansk Pattedyratlas).
 * Systematic information reduced to a minimum, as this information doesn't belong in a list, but should be found on the pages of individual species and pages describing the systematics
 * Formatting revised to be (more) consistent with other pages, most importantly List of Mammals in Europe
 * Check and update of IUCN-status and Danish red list status.
 * Cosmetics, including images.


 * Looks good! DexDor(talk) 20:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Conservation status
The conservation status on a national list should be according to the national red list assessment, not the IUCN species assessment. The national assessment and the species assessment may differ considerably and species that are nationally rare or visitors are often not assessed. --JakobT (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fine, unless the national assessment is as old as the book introduced in the lede. Just do it! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment was primarily directed at Ddum5347 who changed my original text and reverted my reversion.--JakobT (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have changed assessments to match the Danish Red List (Moeslund, 2019). Reference given in top of article. Please do not revert to IUCN status without justifying why the national red list status is inappropriate on a national list.--JakobT (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I support this revert. Statuses should be based on national works where available from properly researched sources. Changing them to IUCN statuses removes valuable regional or national detail. Internstional statuses can be found in the relevant taxon's page. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

European bison and brown bear
I was just looking over the red list source for the page and it even mentions the European bison as extirpated (in the list's case, regionally extinct). So you removed my edit without even bothering to check the source itself. Ddum5347 (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The most autoritative source is Aaris-Sørensen (1987): The prehistoric fauna of Denmark (in Danish). it lists 6 known records of European Bison from Denmark, all 6000 years old or more. This is common knowledge to Danish zoologist and European bison thus in my opinion bison cannot be said to be a natural part of the modern Danish fauna. The red list correctly has an entry for European Bison. I apologize for not checking before now, but it refers to a few fenced herds, which in my opinion qualifies as animals in captivity, not part of the Danish fauna. This I am happy to discuss, of course. --JakobT (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree it is not a part of the Danish fauna, but considering it was once native and isn't extinct as a species, it should still be included in this list as "extirpated". You may add a note stating the year if you wish. Ddum5347 (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the brown bear, I would like to see the source you have for bears being long extinct from the country. It seems to me like either IUCN made a mistake, or they're correct and the Danish red list simply didn't bother to make an entry for it. Ddum5347 (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Same as above: Aaris-Sørensen. Most recent remains are close to 4000 years old. Brown bear was clearly more common than Bison and there are many remains, but all are pre-historic. Much more likely to have been driven extinct by humans than the bison, though.--JakobT (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I still say we add them as "extirpated", but with Aaris-Sørensen as a reference. Thoughts? Ddum5347 (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we need to draw a line somewhere reasonably close to modern time. If we include brown bear and european bison, we also should include volverine (extinct 11000 ago), lynx (extinct 5000 years ago), wild cat (2000 years), giant deer (11000 years) raindeer (9500 years) and wild horse (4000 years). In my opinion this is beyond the scope of the list, which should be mammals that you can encounter in the wild in Denmark, or species that have disappeared within the last few hundred years. This seems to be the way other lists are organized as well.--JakobT (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If adding "extirpated in prehistory" is out of the picture, then keep as is. Ddum5347 (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't remember where, but I thought some authorities consider 1500 AD or 500 years ago as the cutoff for including recently extinct species. It might even be the IUCN. The list could make a statement limiting the list on such grounds (assuming a suitable reference can be found).—  Jts1882 &#124; talk 20:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I remember that too. I think we should just keep the list the way it is now. I'm going to assume IUCN made an error in assessing both species. Ddum5347 (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)