Talk:Wolverine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-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 is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
Wolverine is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs. |
[edit] Disamiguation
Does this page need a disamiguation page? These two types of "Wolverines" are unrelated. Frecklefoot 17:31 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)
- Maybe, though I'm not sure it's worth it as long as both entries are so small. Wesley
I removed the Marvel character part since it has its own (lengthy) entry. See disambiguation page.
[edit] Versus Talk
I don't understand why when it comes to animal predators that it always seems necessary to have the "versus" discussion. Can we please edit all the info regarding a wolverine being able to win or lose particular battles against other animals. The Badger article is well written in comparison, "Badgers are capable of fighting off much larger animals such as wolves, coyotes and bears", enough said.
- Makes sense to me - JohnInDC 10:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalized
11/16/06 This page has been vandalized recently, ie the tree frog entry. I surmise that it may be the work of an Ohio State fan since there is a big fooball game between the Michigan Wolverines and Ohio State Buckeyes soon.
[edit] 15 kilo??
In Sweden we have wolverines @ a maximum 45 kilo, and 30 kilo is quite common. And we have beards also. Hello mom.
[edit] Heraldry
Where did this stuff come from? I've split it out into a separate section but it looks wild. --Phil | Talk 17:07, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Napoleon gone
To the person who removed the Napoleon Dynamite reference on 24 Jan 2005... i came to this entry earlier to learn about gulo gulo and that sentence really put a smile on my face. a little whit is what we all need to brighten our days. are you a stodgy librarian?
- I don't know who removed it, but come on . . . it didn't belong there. What might be funny to you might be irritating to someone else. Funnyhat 04:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Killing a Moose?
Man, this would be awesome if it's true, but I'm a bit skeptical. Can someone provide a reference for this happening? I've seen moose up close and personal, and they are HUGE, and have no problem being violent. I have a hard time believing a 66-pound animal could kill one, unless the moose was sick, injured, or juvenile. Can somebody fact-check?
- Taking prey from a polar bear? This would only really work if it was "snatched" and run away with. A polar bear would gut a wolverine with a single swipe.
- Source: Alaska Fish and Games: In the right situations, wolverines can kill moose or caribou, but these occurrences are rare. http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/furbear/wolverin.php Egberts 09:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Source: Some individual wolverines can become good hunters and can kill young and adult ungulates, or animals with hooves, such as caribou and even moose, if the prey is in poor physical condition or if the wolverine has manoeuvred it into a disadvantaged position, such as in heavy snow. http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?id=108 Egberts 09:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- As I understand it, heavy snow is the key - I've seen images of a wolverine killing a wapiti caught in heavy snow. Anyways, a reference here and a request for it on the main page? Fixed. WilyD 13:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Correction... Wolverine has a unique combo of quickness, evasiveness, agility and lethality (powerful crushing jaws). I've only got my grandfather (the Michigan State Game Warden for Oscoda, Mason County, Michigan) who relayed that ¨you only need to witness just once a wolverine take down a black bear with relative ease, and I DO mean relative killing ease. If matched with a grizzly, I'd put money on the wolverine any day.¨ Most bears avoid the wolverines after the first experience and I suspect that bears now avoided wolverine mostly by instinct. A couple of Yogi (dumb) bears would venture and experiment with a wolverine (much to their dissatisfaction) Egberts 09:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Yup. They kill moose by climbing trees, then they jump on moose that walk underneath and kill them. They do the same for deer. 61.230.72.211 03:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sources can be rong and I doubt this. A pack of wovles has trouble killing a moose. But one wolverine can. This is ridiculous. I guess if the moose was in a trap and couldn't fight back. A wolverine vs a grizzly one, if not the largest carnavoire in the world. Yeah righ.t. While wolverines are fierce, they simply cannot take on animals 10 or 20 times their size. Just because a bear or a moose avoids a wolverine means the wolverine can kill it.
But it is true wolverines hunt deer. Dora Nichov 14:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Conservation status
I thought the wolverine was fairly common, at least in Canada. Does this refer to its status throughout its range? Fishhead64 08:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Size
The Wolverine Foundation website puts the wolverine's size much smaller than this article (http://www.wolverinefoundation.org/faq.htm). This article also only mentions the maximum size. An idea of what's average could be useful.
[edit] This entry in wikipedia desperately needs a cleanup.
Can someone suggest this article as one that is very badly in need of a total re-write? It's awful, filled with claims that really do require citation or even general fact-checking.
[edit] A Spelling Mistake -
There was a spelling mistake(Ferocius) That I would like to correct: The Word is Ferocious. Also, Despite the common idea that they(wolverines) are reticent and avoid humans, the one I encountered, proved otherwise, and enforced a speedy retreat back down the trail I was walking down, away from my cabin... And No, it is a valid POV word, not an invalid one. NPOV, could and should only be used when valid. After all, Whether POV or Not, this whole wikipedia thing is about POV. Any other encyclopedia is about pov, also, because that is what defines works of literature be they factual or fiction...
Michael 00:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] On Range Section
I grew up in the northwest region of Iowa and I have seen wolverines occasionally wandering on the land we lived on in the country. My mom told me she has seen wolverines crawling into their dens at sunset in the ditches beside the road. I thought this unusual, considering wolverines are usually reclusive toward humans or anything to do with humans. But, I am sure I have seen them in parts of north and central Iowa.Wolfranger 14:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Range
What about the range outside of Northern America? Punkmorten 11:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Much cleanup needed
This article is full of mistakes and errors. Starting from scientific name (Gulo luscus and then /correct/ Gulo gulo). Please, corrent it googling some decent zoological entry.
[edit] wolverine vs. black bear
hehe, thanks to Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg for correcting my error - don't know how i got that wrong, i've prob read that (cited) article a dozen times! - Metanoid 19:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] range in kilometers?
i added the home range sizes from an already cited article, but it's in square miles. i really prefer to use metric as a standard, esp in science entries. can anyone calculate that for me? thx! - Metanoid 19:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know the conversion but I did change the text from "240 miles square" (a box 240 miles on each side) to "240 square miles", which is much smaller, much more likely, and consistent with the cited article. JohnInDC 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
jeez, where's my brain.... much appreciated! - Metanoid 06:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wolverines in Michigan
The news article about the Wolverine sighting in the Thumb (I think that's where it was) didn't strike me as contradicting or even really calling into question the essential (and rather amusing) fact that the animal isn't indigenous to Michigan. In fact the contrary - one sighting in 200 years seems rather to suggest that, in fact, they just don't live there. Particularly when you consider that their current known range isn't even anywhere close. JohnInDC 12:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- In what way is there any contradiction? The detail does not make any assertion that Michigan is a part of the Wolverine's normal range. It is however an interesting and unusual observation. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be mentioned. older ≠ wiser 22:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the more interesting and unusual (not to mention amusing) item is that the state animal isn't indigenous to the state at all, an observation that is now missing from the text. This sighting - plainly an aberration - is described in a way to suggest that the animal is simply elusive, rather than altogether absent. Perhaps there is a way to tweak it to say both, eh? I took a shot at it. JohnInDC 01:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Your edits are helpful clarification. I only noticed that the reference had been deleted some time ago by an anon IP and I restored the content. older ≠ wiser 02:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It's better with the article too - JohnInDC 02:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article placement
Surely the Marvel Comics Wolverine is more widely-known than the animal. I think this should be at Wolverine (animal) and the comics character at Wolverine. At the very least, the primary Wolverine article should be a dab page. 76.178.95.219 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the actual living animal from which the fictional comic character takes its name should be located at the primary article, current comparative public awareness or popularity in certain demographics notwithstanding. In other words I think it's good as it is. JohnInDC 11:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Subspecies
I changed back the number of subspecies to two. Since 1982 it has been recognized that the Vancouver Island wolverines were identical with the mailand ones. Here are some references: [1] [2] [3] I've also noticed that for conservation purposes, the Canadian government considers only two populations of Gulo gulo, the eastern and the western. However it mentions the possibility that the Vancouver island population might be a subspecies (however most likely extirpated), and that more studies are required: "A single subspecies of wolverine ranges across most of Canada. Further studies are required to determine if the Vancouver Island population is a separate subspecies" from [4]. 194.94.96.194 15:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Revision of range map needed
I think we need a new range map. Compare the wiki map with this one Hinterland Who's Who Range map. The current wiki range map shows Wolverines down into Oregon and California. In Oregon they are reported only in Linn county, Crook county, Harney, and Deschutes county, according to the USDA Forest Service website. The current wiki map shows them all over Oregon, in places like Washington, Columbia and Tillamook county where they don't seem to live. I think the new range map should have two colors, one for the known current range, and the other for sightings. The known current range for the USA, if made accurately, will look more like a bunch of spots than wide swaths of color. - Tsarevna 01:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Assessment
I have assessed this as Start Class, as it contains more detail and information than would be expected of a Stub, and of low importance, as I do not feel that this topic is essential to understanding Canada. Cheers, CP 17:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] YouTube
The rule can't be simply "YouTube is not a reliable source". While it is certainly true that something being portrayed on YouTube does not necessarily make it true, the same can be said from time to time for Fox News. Or CBS. Or - well, pick your source. Here we have a video that illustrates a characteristic of wolverines. It is helpful, the point is fairly uncontroversial, and there is no apparent reason to think that the video was doctored or the situation contrived. It's not a *great* video, and I don't understand Norwegian (if it is Norwegian), but it's still at least incrementally informative, and taking it out just because it happens to be delivered on YouTube diminishes the article by that increment. JohnInDC 13:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- The video is a slow-mo of a wolverine growling and two wolves dancing about. It establishes nothing; certainly not that wolverines can "usually" over power everything smaller than an adult brown bear. And YouTube is not a reliable source—it does not meet WP:V in the slightest. Marskell 08:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh and "the point is fairly uncontroversial"? That wolverines can match wolf packs, cougars, and black bears? Hmm. Marskell 08:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
"Not in the slightest" is incorrect. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples. The exceptions pretty well swallow the rule. In short, YouTube is reliable if the thing being portrayed can be established as reliable, which was more or less my point. This video is a useful and illuminating example of wolverine behavior - something that, given the animal's reclusivity, is not easy to come by, and rather than remove this example, the better solution would be simply to amend the text to match the video. I do agree, however, that the provenance of the video is uncertain - as I said I don't speak Norwegian - and I can't vouch for the copyright status either, so for those reasons re-linking it is not appropriate.
I think, however, that the lesson is not to remove YouTube videos willy-nilly but to pause to consider what the actual objection to the link is.
Finally it would seem that if the point is controversial and - without the video, wholly unsourced - then it should not be in the article at all, and I've edited the text to that effect. JohnInDC 12:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Your link is to an essay, not a policy. But do note: "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher, but even then should be used with caution." I am going to continue to remove it, willy-nilly. Marskell 13:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Certainly I can't stop you but I don't see how Wikipedia is improved through the black-and-white application of a rule that is plainly drawn in shades of gray. Wikipedia:Use common sense. JohnInDC 13:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- I really don't see YouTube as a shade of grey. Clearly, there is no editorial oversight and that is the basic determinant of reliability. Our policies have evolved a necessary rigidity over time but there are allowances made. Do give V a read, if you haven't. Marskell 13:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Though I agree we're pretty well beating a dead wolverine now, WP:V directs the reader right back to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples for further insight into the reliability of self-published sources like YouTube. There we have the statement - essay - that says, in essence, "YouTube is unreliable except for when it is". I understand the general principle of editorial oversight and reliability but YouTube is just a medium, and when it serves as a window to another source that *does* reflect editorial oversight, then the link is, or can be, reliable. The video that you originally deleted fails that test, no argument there any more, but I really am perplexed by the assertion that YouTube links are simply verboten and must be stricken when encountered. That doesn't match up with either Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples or Wikipedia:Use common sense. JohnInDC 13:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- It does not say "except for when it is." It says that it may occasionally used as a primary source, and even then with caution. The material here required a secondary source. A vast majority of YouTube videos amount, in a sense, to anecdotes. You can't extrapolate from a single video to make a claim about behaviour, unless a reliable secondary source has done so. YouTube might, sometimes, be useful in the External links section. Incidentally, where V and any guideline appear to be in contradiction, V trumps. I wouldn't even depend on RS, it's such a moving target. Marskell 13:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I was paraphrasing, and I think fairly. It certainly does say that, "YouTube videos are unreliable", yet also that YouTube videos may sometimes be acceptable as primary or secondary sources. So they are unreliable, except when they can be shown to be reliable. The greatest problem, I imagine, is that most YouTube videos that meet the reliability test are also likely to pose copyright problems. But that is not the same as inherent unreliability.
I am hardly a Wikipedia maven so I cannot intelligently discuss the hierarchy of various forms of guidance found on Wikipedia, but it seems to me that if the principles of V trump the specific examples to which V expressly directs the inquiring editor, then V should not link to the examples; that, or the reference in V should at least be qualified in a way that informs the uninformed that the linked discussion cannot be relied upon. JohnInDC 14:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- If a YouTube video has, say, an ABC News description I could imagine using it—but then you're citing ABC, not YouTube. YouTube per se cannot be used as a secondary source.
- There is human error built into the P&Gs, obviously. In theory, nothing that V links to should contradict it. In practice, that might happen. Marskell 14:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] wolverine nourishment
where does a wolverine gets it nourishment for water? Does it each plants for water or does it drink from a stream
Jack Michels —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.153.221 (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Need citation!
"Some authors recognize two subspecies: the Old World form Gulo gulo gulo and the New World form G. g. luscus. A third subspecies limited to Vancouver Island (G. g. vancouverensis) is also occasionally described. However craniomorphic evidence suggests that the Vancouver Island wolverines are properly included within G. g. luscus."
Who are "some authors"? What craniomorphic evidence? Why? Please don't add things to articles without citations or explanations.
"Wolverines, as other mustelids, possess a special upper molar in the back of the mouth that is rotated 90 degrees, or sideways. This special characteristic allows wolverines to tear off meat from prey or carrion that has been frozen solid and also to crush bones, which enables the wolverine to extract marrow."
Crushing bones to extract marrow is not an ability specific to mustelids and their specialized teeth, though I'm sure they help. Most, if not all carnivores can do this, including domestic cats and dogs. I can't look up a source right now, as I am at work, but this is being posted from a veterinary hospital, hopefully that is sufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.73.10 (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
