Talk:Indo-Pacific finless porpoise

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cetaceans, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CetaceansWikipedia:WikiProject CetaceansTemplate:WikiProject CetaceansCetaceans articles

Korea Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 28 August 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Finless porpoise to Indo-Pacific finless porpoise. The result of the discussion was moved.

Endangered status

-The endangered status is Critically Endangered not Vulnerable

Not according to the official IUCN documentation [1] --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-I completely agree with you. It is Critically Endangered not Vulnerable according to WWF Organisation (https://www.wwf.org.uk/learn/wildlife/yangtze-finless-porpoise). I have not been disrupting the page - I have been correcting the incorrect information!

SaveTheSharks7 (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaveTheSharks7 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That information should be included (with reference) in the section on "Conservation", not the section in the taxobox (at the top of the page) where the official IUCN Red List status is listed. The WWF and the IUCN are two different organisations, and we cannot use a source from one to indicate what the other says. Anaxial (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bionomial

The article calls it Neophocaena phocaenoides, while the taxobox lists Neophocaena phoconoides. Which is correct? —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 01:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't the Yangtze River's link work? I don't see it as a link, although in the edit box it looks like a perfectly legal link.Why dont you put somthing more interesting in here cause all i see is BLAH BLAH BLAH. Anonimyst

WP:CETA capitalisation discussion

May be three species, not one

New research: [2] Rmhermen (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Although the image is very cute, it doesn't show the grey coloring or the lack of dorsal fin. Perhaps this one is a bit better, but still not ideal: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/FinlessPorpoise5.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treva26 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Neophocaena which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]