Talk:Pink-headed duck

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Birds Mid‑importance Pink-headed duck is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Birds To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more) Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more) Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more) Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more) NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more) Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more) Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more) Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more) Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more) Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles. More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo. Extinction Low‑importance This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

According to the Extinct birds page this duck is officially Critically Endangered. Which is correct? See here [1]

don't know what the criterium is for official extinction, but as it says, no confirmed sightings for 70 years - change status if preferred. jimfbleak 05:06, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Present and past-tense words are both used. Even though the bird is most likely extinct, its category is still critically endangered. I have changed the all the past-tense words to present ("was" to "is"). Change it back if you don't agree. --209.7.171.66 21:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree. Definitely keep it in the present tense. Iancaddy 01:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IUCN says: " This species has not been conclusively seen in the wild since 1949; it was always considered rare, and is likely to have declined severely through a combination of hunting and habitat loss. However, further surveys are needed of remote wetlands in northern Myanmar where there has been a possible sighting and local reports. Any remaining population is likely to be tiny, and for these reasons it is treated as Critically Endangered." I'm going to change the official marker. Mukkakukaku 00:20, 19 April 2007

Changed it to PE. The information you cite is a 2006 assessment based on the data available by then. "further surveys" have been conducted; all have come out negative. PE is probably the best possibly WP category as of now.

Also changed section header more neutrally. Dysmorodrepanis 03:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birdlife which is the official red list authority for birds for IUCN has categorised it as CR per this link available in the article. Am reversing this edit hence. prashanthns (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

which authority put this species into the genus Netta? Because both Sibley & Monroe and ITIS still regarded it as Rhodonessa? --Melly42 14:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suggest that it goes back into Rhodonessa. The basis for putting it into Netta is Livezey (1998), but the methodology is not very good. Dysmorodrepanis 04:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]