Talk:List of mammals of Great Britain

message: Human ??? (Is it a joke?)--Kerry7374 07:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think it is a joke. Humans are mammals that certainly live in Britain. GameKeeper 09:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then how about Cow, Horse, Sheep, Pig, Dog, Cat...etc.? --Kerry7374 09:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article is titled as "Great Britain", but then goes on to define itself as a list of mammals of the "British Isles". The two are not synonymous: the former is a subset of the latter.
The article should either be retitled "British isles" or else cut down to GB species only.
—GRM (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title is incorrect 

message: Is just one specimen justification for inclusion in this list? I feel qualified to ask the question, but not to answer it. I would be interested to know how other editors feel on this?  Simuliid talk 15:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geoffroy's Bat 

message: Per the point raised by GRM above and Terminology of the British Isles, I propose that the British Isles replace Great Britain in the title of this article. Spicemix (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The point raised by GRM above was dealt with at the time as far as I remember, and this article now simply deals with what is published for Great Britain (covered by the various "Red Books").  There's a separate List of mammals of Ireland article (as there's also separate Red Books for Ireland).  The global scientific community also tends to treat the islands as separate regions and has assigned separate codes for each territory.  --HighKing (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for that. The article does cover species only found on islands off Scotland and the Channel Islands, but it probably doesn't warrant any action. Spicemix (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move proposal 

message: There seems to be some inconsistency in the treatment of 'introduced' species.  There is a separate section on 'introduced' species, yet some species (e.g. rabbits and fallow deer) explicitly described as 'introduced' are included in other sections.  I suspect there is an implicit distinction between those introduced in the distant past and those (e.g. the grey squirrel) introduced within recorded times, but this is not applied consistently, e.g. the American Mink is included in the main list of Carnivora, not the section on introduced species, though its introduction was later than that of the grey squirrel.109.150.7.148 (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of mammals of Great Britain. 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/20040913131315/http://www.jncc.gov.uk/Publications/review_britishmammals/areviewofbritishmammalsall.pdf to http://www.jncc.gov.uk/Publications/review_britishmammals/areviewofbritishmammalsall.pdf
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) 07:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It seems that the IUCN categories are used inconsistently. Some (e.g. wolf) are given as EX as extinct in GB; others have only their worldwide (or European?) IUCN status...?
—GRM (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUCN categories – inconsistent use? 

message: I've gone ahead and removed the IUCN conservation statuses for pinnipeds and cetaceans. As noted above, these were used inconsistently, with some referring only to local populations (eg the North Atlantic right whale), but some referring to global populations (such as any of the vagrant species, where it would makes no sense to refer to a local population). Furthermore, unlike the available regional red list for terrestrial mammals, I wasn't able to find any similar list for the marine mammals that could serve as a source. I contemplated just switching all of them to their global conservation status, but decided that probably wasn't very useful on a list of this type and could potentially be misleading. As such, I figured that removing them entirely was the best option. I'm happy to discuss if anyone disagrees. Lowercaserho (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: IUCN status for pinnipeds and cetaceans

message: (pinging ) The issue of whether to use conservation status from the global IUCN red list or the regional one (cited as a reference in the lead) is coming up again. I can certainly see the arguments for both and thinking about it, I'm wondering if the best solution might not be to change the list to a table formatting and include both statuses (where available)? I'm happy to do the work on it at some point in the next week, if people think it's a good idea. Any thoughts? Lowercaserho (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this option of showing both global and national status. This would be consistent with all the other List of mammals of ... most of which show the global status, which I've been updating lately. I suggest to reference the latest issue of the national Red List, rather than a newspaper. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Hello. Unfortunately, and with my apologies, real life issues have prevented me from being able to work on this (or anything else Wikipedia related). I may get to it at some point in the future, but am not able to make any sort of timely committment.   (or anyone else), if you want to make changes here, please do so. The regional red list that was in use here was the one linked from the citation in the lead, published by The Mammal Society . Again, I can only apologise for being unable to go through with what I had said I was going to. Lowercaserho (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry! In any case, I suggest to remove refs to newspaper articles, because these are certainly NOT the appropriate refs for global or national RL status. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Regional vs global redlist conservation status

message: I thought it a bit harsh that this entry was removed shortly after it was added, but then I noticed the date of the source. If there's been no update for 12+ years, does that justify non-inclusion in the list?
—GRM (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Elk (aka 'Moose')