Talk:Ferret

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Mammals Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Mammal-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Mustelids work group. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Archives

Archive 1

[edit] New Image (?)

from TiHa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.136.230.137 (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reduction of the section on Ferret's status internationally

Most of the first five or six sections merely take up one or two lines; not enough for a section. I figured it would be better to keep them in bulletin form, rather than pad the table of contents for the article with redundant fluff. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Should the same be done for the import laws section? Seems to be a similar situation. -- Greyed (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] European polecat

According to this link from U of Michigan the ferret is indeed a subspecies of the European polecat. I thought maybe we can include that even though it comes from an anon user with doubtful record. The only thing I have not verified is the latin translation, but it sounds plausible. Dr.K. (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the claim from the U of Michigan, as there is no evidence in support of it; many authorities consider the correct scientific name for the ferret to be Mustela furo, to make that clear. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed before, here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. But this discussion link is not very exhaustive and not very detailed. Maybe some more effort should be directed in determining this, since anecdotal references to a scientist using the name M. furo in preference to Mustela putorius furo are not exactly reliable. And the question remains how can a distinguished University such as Michigan make such an assertion if it were false. Seems like a reliable source to me. Dr.K. (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not the university that is making the claim, it is simply a web site containing information from an anonymous source. All that can be said with any certainty is that the use of the trinomial implies that ferrets are a subspecies of the European polecat, but there has as yet been no evidence produced to support that claim. Hence many authorities refer to the ferret as Mustela furo. If you - or the U of Michigan - are aware of any evidence to support the notion that ferrets are a subspecies of Mustela putorius then let's see it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the university as in here:

Overview

Animal Diversity Web (ADW) is an online database of animal natural history, distribution, :classification, and conservation biology at the University of Michigan

Quote: If you - or the U of Michigan - are aware of any evidence to support the notion that ferrets are a subspecies of Mustela putorius then let's see it.

I didn't know that I or for that matter the university have to provide any evidence other than the one presented in the website. The logic goes as follows: University of Michigan is a reliable source. The website is from the University of Michigan, i.e. reliable. Therefore let's quote the website. In fact the onus is the other way around. It is on the editor who wrote that there is a controversy to cite this controversy using a reliable source. The way it is now, without a citation is unacceptable. Anyone can write anything they want. Without a citation this claim is basically meaningless. Dr.K. (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(Unident) To make it more clear I quote again: All that can be said with any certainty is that the use of the trinomial implies that ferrets are a subspecies of the European polecat, but there has as yet been no evidence produced to support that claim. Hence many authorities refer to the ferret as Mustela furo

If we can substatntiate that: many authorities refer to the ferret as Mustela furo using citations this will be fine. Otherwise the word many, without a citation, is a prime example of WP:WEASEL. Dr.K. (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

How ironic, when you consider what the article is on! LOL! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Where I do agree with you is that the claim made later in the lead about the uncertainty of the ferret's ancestry does need to be supported by a citation, which I will provide. Where I don't agree with you is that a disputed naming convention sheds any light on the ferret's genetic origin in the absence of any supporting evidence. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Great. Let's split the difference and agree on your first point. That will be sufficient for strengthening your argument and therefore will make the second point moot. Thank you for an interesting discussion. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a citation as promised. Looking at that References section, I really think that it needs to be beefed up. I've made a start, what do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Your citation is excellent. The size of the references section seems to be ok. At first glance some sections such as "Activity and nature" need a little beefing up because the citations there seem sparse. Your citation has strengthened the lead and therefore the confidence the readers feel as they read further into the article. Thank you for taking the time to address this point. It's been a pleasure. Dr.K. (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section intro

"A ferret is a domestic mammal...". I'm almost certain this is - whilst still a minor problem - part of the overall problem with this article. I think it ought to be reworded so it reads something like "Ferrets are domestic mammals..." and so forth. The Bold text bit, I believe, is supposed to be the direct start of the article. This is what I'm going to do right now. If anyone reverts me, please leave a detailed explanation as to why below this message. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm thinking of this being done for all articles, as a matter of fact.

Instead of just one plain sandbox in Wikipedia, and a few owned by some users, why don't we create a sandbox for each article? We can make the sandboxes look exactly like the articles, only here the vandalizers are allowed to play around with the page! I'm posting this here because Ferret gets vandalized alot. If someone could point to me the proper project page to post this on, I'll repeat myself there. Thanks! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think it would do any good. Vandals mess up articles because they enjoy causing trouble, and I don't think we should be going out of our way to accomidate them.JeffStickney (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I probably misunderstand the meaning of "accomidate", but that's what I thought we would be stopping. Oh well; easy come, easy go. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ferrets in literature

--Isn't there also a poem by Jean Follaine titled "Death of a Ferret?"66.217.45.44 (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)--Ray

Yes. You are correct. I'll put it in. Dr.K. (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)