This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Quenda is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Per WP:MAMMALS, we should not list this as a species. Our current policy is that we list anything as it appears in MSW3, unless both the IUCN and ASM agree on a change in status. Since the IUCN does not agree with the ASM here, we should list this as a subspecies. - UtherSRG(talk) 12:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
The IUCN and MSW3 information is outdated (last assessed 2014) rather than in disagreement with current research.
As it is considered an important species in (Western) Australia, worthy of research and conservation, updates need to be diseminated ASAP.
My main aim though, was to provide an information page linked to the iNaturalist species "about" page [1] where I.fusciventer is recognized as a species by ASM and AFD et al. and is monitored under local WA Conservation status P4.
As such, is there any way to proceed regardless? Andocommando WA (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Your purpose is WP:ISNOT what Wikipedia is about. To wit, that's the thinking of creating a directory where people can link from to get to new information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we have a different standard to maintain. I agree that the IUCN is old on this, and MSW3 even older. However, that's where our current consensus stands. If you wish to open a dialogue to update the current thinking, it should be on the broad level of WP:MAMMALS and not on an individual taxon. - UtherSRG(talk) 12:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=logo}
