Talk:List of recently extinct mammals

message: In the article, one finds this comment: "officially listed as critically endangered, possibly extinct, It is thought that some people have them in captivity". I don't think this is correct - I think the official IUCN status is "functionally extinct" i.e. it is possible that a few ageing individuals exist naturally and none are known to exist in captivity. Anyway, the current statement is not referenced and I cannot find any corroborating reference either. It is unlikely to be true since it has proven to be extremely difficult to keep these animals in captivity. Many details are available on the wikipedia Baiji page. Unless there are any objections I will modify this page.... (Quantum.wells (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I have changed this to link to the page on functional extinction. Quantum.wells (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Baiji (Chinese river dolphin) 

message: I suggest to restructure the article like the following: (Ucucha 14:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested restructuring

message: The most obvious head-scratcher of this article is that it does not clearly define the chronology it is using for these lists of mammalian extinctions. Common era should be defined as starting from 1AD. But how does that relate to "historic" and "pre-historic"? I gather "historic" refers to times after humans began to settle and grow crops and possess written languages. If that is right, "historic" is no earlier than 5000 years ago. "Pre-historic" could then mean anything since the start of life itself circa 3.8 billion years ago, but it is often taken to refer to the early history of Man, and that would make it no more than a million years ago, and about a hundred thousand if only Homo Sapiens is to be considered. 
The article might begin to clarify these matters at the outset. It is not enough to use the ambiguous term "historically known" or "known to science", as in both cases, "known" can mean known by contemporary science or known by the science of that time. It needs something like "These lists are of those mammals which became extinct during the time that humans were present on the Earth, and whose existence was recorded either in picture or written word or orally by the humans of that time." If no one does anything, I will make some changes like that when I next pass this way. Myles325a (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article needs a full restructuring, preferably along the lines of the proposal I gave in the section above here. Such a restructuring should also include clear inclusion criteria. I am afraid I don't have the time to do this myself. Ucucha 02:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion re: times and dates 

message: Japanese wolf has the year as "1930s" in the list. But when I click it, there is a disambiguation page which has two supspecies. That page says they are both extinct, earlier one in 1889 and latter one in 1905. So the years do not match (though I did not look their articles, only disambig page). 82.141.125.5 (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese wolf 

message: . Monkey lemurs, two genera (Madagascar)    
. Sloth lemurs, four genera (Madagascar)   
. Koala lemur, three species the genus Megaladapis (1500, Madagascar)  
. Giant ruffed lemur, two species in the genus Pachylemur (Madagascar)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.128.204.201 (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Primates

message: The lead section defines this article as covering mammals that "have been described by science, but which have subsequently become extinct".  My thought was that this article was supposed to cover modern extinctions, and that List of prehistoric mammals was supposed to cover older extinctions (the lead of List of prehistoric mammals certainly implies that).  However, there is some gray area in what should be in each list.  Groups like the International Union for Conservation of Nature usually define "modern" extinctions as those occurring after the year 1500 (as mentioned in the Extinction article).  However, an animal could have gone extinct after 1500 but without having been scientifically described.  By the current scope specified in the lead, those animals wouldn't be included here.  Also, some animals went extinct in historical times but before 1500 (e.g., the elephants currently listed in this list).  They wouldn't properly fit on a list of prehistoric mammals, but aren't "modern" extinctions by the common definition.  Where should such animals be placed?  My thought is that this list should at least include all mammals that went extinct after 1500 (even if they went extinct before being described by science in the sense of being given a scientific name and a description published in a formal paper).  However, I think it might also be best to keep all mammals that were historically known on this list (such as those known to the ancient Greeks and Romans, like the Syrian and North African elephants).  That way there would be a place for extinctions that are neither modern nor prehistoric. Calathan (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The list inclusion criteria stated in this list's lead paragraph are what they are, and no more. Past editors have wrestled with this question (see #Confusion re: times and dates above). I think restricting this list to a specific time period is a good idea, but is a change that should be made by consensus. Let's undergo RfC to get some traction on this. Ibadibam (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of this article 

message: Should the inclusion criteria for this list be amended to include only extinctions occurring on or after the year 1500 CE? Ibadibam (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I support changing the name to "List of recently extinct mammals".  That name seems to better describe what the scope of the article will be if the criteria for inclusion is changed to mammals that went extinct after 1500. Calathan (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Inclusion criteria 

message: I've gone ahead and moved the article.  No one seemed to object to renaming the article, and several people supported it, so I think there is a consensus for the move. Calathan (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I just renamed List of recently extinct birds for the same reasons. FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  that there was consensus for these moves. If anyone objects, move it back as a technical move and start an official move request. Ibadibam (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Renamed 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion