Talk:Redlichiina

Regarding conservation status

In other fossil articles, its status as a fossil is not in the taxobox. I see no reason as to why this article should be any different. Mark t young (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other fossil articles about a particular species, its status as a fossil is, or should be, in the taxobox. Only individual species are or are not fossils. If other articles about a particular species does not have a conservation status, then those articles should be changed, not this one. PAR (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Fossil" is not an IUCN conservation status. They are "Extinct", "Extinct in the Wild", "Critically Endangered", "Endangered", "Vulnerable", "Threatened", "Conservation Dependent", "Near Threatened", and "Least Concern". Wikipedia:Taxobox_usage#Conservation_status clearly states: "Conservation status may optionally be included; you can search the IUCN's database of threatened species to find the conservation status of many organisms. It is included via the status argument, which takes a code or template. It is not appropriate for prehistoric organisms - the fossil_range parameter may be a more sensible option." Firsfron of Ronchester 09:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]