Talk:Not evaluated

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Conservation Dependent - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 18:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Capitalisation of conservation statuses

Please see the ongoing discussion on Talk:Conservation status#Capitalisation of conservation statuses.
Coreyemotela (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC).

Is this actually a thing?

I've never had any success searching the IUCN database for any species that Wikipedia lists as "Not evaluated". Yes, there are thousands of species that don't have IUCN evaluations. They are noted by their absence from the red list database. Not evaluated is not a conservation status, it's an absence of one, and can't be proven by citing a non-existent source. Data Deficient is a sourceable conservation status. Ultimately, nothing should link here and this article should be deleted. It only exists because various article taxoboxes have an "NE" conservation status. There's also some usage of "NR" (Not Recognized, i.e., also absent from the IUCN database). Plantdrew (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

IUCN and independent sources recognize it as a thing, therefore, it's a thing. "The IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria are intended to be an easily and widely understood system for classifying species at high risk of global extinction. It divides species into nine categories: Not Evaluated, Data Deficient, Least Concern, Near Threatened, Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered, Extinct in the Wild and Extinct."[1] - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there added value in a list of species which are Not Evaluated

This as been a subject of many back-and-forth edits in the article. The most recent edit [2] favouring a grouped list of species with Wikilinks, itemizing species deemed "Not evaluated". This continues a series of reversals since a status quo at (wow) November 2018. The practical debate reflects many editors' opinions. The ones that reflect my own argue that the list is too much content, is indiscriminate, and adds little value for the reader of the article. Myself, I question whether it can be maintained, given ongoing research into species and how their future might be predicted in more rapidly changing environments. I think the list is of very limited value compared to the effort, some of which might require original research, to maintain it. It is not really a vital part of the overall subject "Not evaluated", in my opinion, so I've reverted to where the article existed without it. _signed, Willondon (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

(P.S.) *Ahem* Okay, somebody else did that. But I was going to...