Excuse me, but why exactly are the lion and cheetah listed under Artiodactyla? o_O --Mithcoriel (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listing By Order?

Although sorting the lists of vulnerable species may be more scientifically sound, does it really make it a better article? It doesn't make it particularly "user friendly" for individuals without a basic taxonomic understanding.

Crydwyn 9th Oct 2006

Request to any of the more experienced Wikipedia editors: Add, or let me know how to add, wiki links automatically. This page can needs links to the animals listed.

Arunan 11th Oct 2006

Also, agree with Crydwyn on the sorting. I don't think the current sorting is technically sound too, it lists random orders from different classes. Even if we have to use a taxon, I suggest Class instead of Order. Arunan 11th Oct 2006

Kiwi

The Kiwi article says that the Kiwi fits under this category but isn't listed on this list. I have no idea where to add it, but somebody else can.

There are several species belonging to the Kiwi genus, and all of them are vulnerable or worse. Some are listed under Struthioniformes, which is the order they belong to. —Pengo 21:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human Race?

Even though many of you would dissagree to this and that the human is very common, I think it should be added to the list. This is due to the vulnerability of the human race due to its lack of natural defenses, constant fighting, and even the possibility of humans eliminating the entirity of the human race (Examples: Bio-terrorism, nuclear halocaust, global warming). If we humans do not fall into this category specifically, then we should still be added to a list to explain our vulnerability to ourselves and other species with a lack of technology. Eiyuu Kou 18:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, this is for species listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List. Let's just say we're Least Concern. 142.205.213.42 17:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually criteria to follow to be considered vulnerable, and not just opinion. And as human population and range are not shrinking, the only criteria we could nearly fit into would be E: "Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is at least 10% within 100 years" but if we fit into that, then so does every mammal, bird and reptile on the planet. Besides, as has been pointed out above, we only list the assessments from the IUCN, and not our own. —Pengo 21:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humans are no way Vulnerable. There are billions of us. LOOOOOOOOOOLWUT. 17:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.62.88 (talk)

this list needs pictures

Split

The 27 January 2010, I have extracted a list of all vulnerable species marked by the IUCN Red List (see the following link : http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/search/link/4b608fc6-cf89582b), but now the article is extremly long and very hard to edit. It should be split, but I don't know what would be the best solution. Please bring one. - Galmicmi (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Vulnerable species shouldn't be here. 78.151.23.110 (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]