Template talk:IUCN status

It's not linking to the right page

So big problem, inputting {{IUCN status|LC|2467|1}} should give me a link to the bowhead whale, but LC ^IUCN just leads me to the main IUCN page instead   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

It worked OK for me. As I understand it, the "1" in the option area is supposed to provide a link to the IUCN page on the bowhead whale. And that's what your example did just now, when I tried it. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Module rewrite

I've recreated this template as a lua (Scribunto) module. Motivation was that the old version was going over the template expansion budget when used a very large number of times in new threatened species lists I'm putting together. I've attempted to keep the syntax the same for using it. Hopefully I haven't broken anything. I've also added year and label parameters to adjust the how the reference link to the IUCN is displayed. The idea is to use either year or label (or none just to have it say "IUCN").

This changed flattens the template, so {{IUCN status/status}} and {{IUCN status/url}} are no longer needed. Not sure if they should just be deleted.

With year=2025, here's how it looks currently: CR ^{IUCN 2025} Welcome any changes or suggestions for how else to display the reference link. Maybe just the year by itself? —Pengo 05:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Pengo: Hi, this is great! However, the template is missing NA for "not applicable", as for the Caspian turtle (Mauremys caspica). Also, RE for "regionally extinct" isnt't working, as for the pine bunting (Emberiza leucocephalos ) in the Europe assessment. Snowman304|talk 17:06, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Cheers for the feedback. NA and RE are now added. Examples:

• Caspian turtle (Europe assessment) NA ^{IUCN 2024}
• Pine bunting (Europe assessment) RE ^{IUCN 2021}

—Pengo 09:11, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

References

This template doesn't meet accessibility guidelines

I would like to change the foreground text colour of this template to white, because the current colours do not pass accessibility guidelines. For example: VU does not pass a single test on the WebAIM contrast checker. Just checking here to make sure there are no objections to this change, since it's a fairly widely used template. If there are no objections in a week, I will change it myself. Thanks Let Me Edit It (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@LetmeEditit I'd recommend using the following colors, which pass AA for normal text and AAA for large text:  EX   CR   EN   VU   NT   LC   (NR) . I mocked them up at Template:IUCN status/sandbox. We'd also need to update File:Status iucn3.1.svg. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:49, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I do think that LC should not have a blank background. For one, it makes it indistinguishable from regular text, unlike NT/VU/EN/CR/EX, and for two, it's currently the same as for DD and NE, but LC is an actual category very different from "not evaluated". See the (just changed) colors for the IUCNCS template () - while NE is probably too light, it does have LC clearly different from the "not evaluated" colors. --PresN 00:20, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@PresN I changed LC in Template:IUCN status/sandbox to match File:Status iucn3.1.svg, so LC is now  LC  as opposed to  NE  and  DD . --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:44, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ahecht: Excellent, thanks! I think go ahead and pull it out of the sandbox, the current colors aren't accessible and this is an easy, direct improvement. --PresN 13:47, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Looks good, but it might be easy to confuse with NT. Any other ideas? Let Me Edit It (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

To me, the alternating of text colour between dark and light make it hard to read. I propose  EX   CR   EN   VU   NT   LC   (NR) , which meets AA for large text, which is all we need considering that the text is bold. Please let me know what you think :) Let Me Edit It (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Not opposed to using all white lettering, but I maintain that LC should have a background color to make it visually distinct from the "not evaluated" categories. If we don't want to repeat the NT color, maybe make the NT color into a bolder green?  EX   CR   EN   VU   NT   LC   (NR)  --PresN 14:02, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it is still hard to tell the difference, at least on my monitor. How about  LC ? I think it is useful to have LC be grey, to distinguish it from the rest of the categories, because it is the only one where there is no level of threat. Let Me Edit It (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm good with that too, if we're leaving DD/NE with no background. --PresN 14:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

DD/NE are kind of non-ratings, they are basically the lack of a rating. I think keeping the background transparent works for them, because the lack of background evokes the lack of rating. If that makes sense? Let Me Edit It (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@LetmeEditit, @PresN: I already updated the template and related images based on my previous set of colors, but I undid that for now. I can do another round of updates tomorrow. The above proposals still don't quite work, as VU still fails. Rather than pure white, I'd suggest the following:

 EX   CR   EN   VU   NT   LC   DD   NE   (NR) . This also avoids it being a significant departure from the existing images outlined in commons:Template:Pengo IUCN, which put NT and LC as very similar colors intentionally. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:41, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I still prefer my proposal, but I'm happy with this as a compromise. You make a fair point about keeping it similar to the Pengo IUCN images. May I place this on Wikipedia:Village pump, to solicit some more opinions? I feel that, with only 3 of us here so far, we may be overlooking some things. Thanks, Let Me Edit It (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@LetmeEditit Posting to the village pump sounds like a good idea. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:30, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I have posted it in the miscellaneous section, and I'm going to bed now :) Let Me Edit It (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I saw the Village Pump notice and placed additional notices at WT:TOL and WT:BIOL. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I like the brighter  NT  from above. It's more consistent with the rest as well as better differentiated from  LC  while still similar. I'm not sure why they did it the way they did on Pengo, but I see this as an "improved accessibility" version still in keeping with the spirit of that. If you really want "not white" text we can go #EFE and #EFF.
Also FYI  EX  isn't great in dark mode - I can read it with fully functional vision, but the contrast is poor. Dunno how much of a concern that is though. Maybe bump it up to  EX ? That stands out better in both.

FWIW  DD  NE  still fail WebAIM (although I'm sure our timestamps etc do as well). If we drop it down to  DD   NE  they pass.

Lastly, I took  VU  down to a darker version of the original tone that passes on contrast, without the olive skew.

So my full proposal would be  EX   CR   EN   VU   NT   LC   DD   NE   (NR) . They all pass AAA for large text, display well in both light and dark modes, and follow the original scheme closely. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Those look very nice and are notably more readable, seems reasonable. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:37, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Ooh, I prefer this to my own suggestion! I think the subtle tweaks to EX and VU make it much better. I couldn't quite place what felt "off" to me about Ahecht's proposal, but I think that was it. Thank you! Let Me Edit It (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm in favor of these as well. --PresN 11:27, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat Looks good to me too. I've updated {{IUCN status/sandbox}}. @All Let me know if it looks good and I'll copy it over to the main template. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:14, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Looks good! Ahecht, PresN, and ChompyTheGogoat, thank you all so much. It looks a lot better now, and is better than what I could have come up with on my own. Let Me Edit It (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:25, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Add wikilink by default

Any objections to making option "2" the default? Are there ever situations where we wouldn't want to wikilink to the page about the status? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Good idea! I don't see why not. Let Me Edit It (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I also agree. --PresN 14:05, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Fourthed(?) ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I've updated {{IUCN status/sandbox}} so that the link is always on by default, and you can turn it off by setting |link= to a blank value. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:15, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:25, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

IUCN Endangered status

Declangi raised a question on the talk page for a template that uses this status template: for EN, IUCN status currently links to Endangered species, but Endangered species (IUCN status) exists as a separate article. Should we be linking to the more specific one instead, seeing as this is specifically for the IUCN status? The two articles overlap quite a bit, but the main "endangered" article also covers other schemes like the US Endangered Species Act, and other IUCN templates such as the Threatened species navbox and Conservation status sidebar link to the "(IUCN status)" article. --PresN 11:56, 2 October 2026 (UTC)