Jump to content

Talk:North American beaver

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:North American Beaver)

Canadian Beaver

[edit]

How did this get to be called "American Beaver" when its scientific name is "Canadian beaver"? :) Adam Bishop 19:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Canada might have been where the first specimen was discovered and "American" refers to the New World version as opposed to the European species. Let's face it, most North Americans just call them beavers. There are also:
--Big_Iron 21:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Man, we Canadian should be up in arms over the Americans stealing all of our taxonomic terms. --70.77.45.29 (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Yahoo's database, the Canadian beaver has 197,000 pages; American, 98,700; North American, 24,400; New World, 630.
In Google's database, the Canadian beaver has 69,500 pages; American, 56,400; North American, 8,300; New World, 1,410.
--J.K.Herms (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this dispute is serious, the article should be moved to Castor canadensis according to the guidance of WP:NC. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, wouldn’t “Castor canadiensis” have been the term most preferred by those unsung beavers who first discovered Europeans… namely, Quebec’s intrepid castors canadiens?
--J.K.Herms (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

[edit]

This photo is okay, but it doesn't give us a full view of the animal. It would be nice to have a pic that shows the animal's distinctive tail. the photo on the article has no copyright tag.LadyofHats 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well no its not the american beaver

[edit]

well i find this to be a big inslut ok MR. wise guy how about the canadian egle lol this is not right either so i dont see how funny it is to u to hear that CANADIAN EGLE!!!!!!!!!! change IT

"American" Beaver

[edit]

The name North American Beaver is perfectly ok, but it has been shortened to "American Beaver" (As in the USA's beaver). Canada is the country where most of them live, and the Canadian Beaver is an icon of the country. You will never see a cartoon beaver draped in the stars and stripes, but always in the red and white Canadian flag.

The title of this article is a slap across the face of all Canadians. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to change it without disruption in Wikipedia.

68.145.210.24 18:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't interpret "American" as being equatable to "US" in this context. In taxonomy, "America," "American," and "Americus" often seem to distinguish species of the American continents, or North American continent, from similar species on other continents. In the US and Canada, colloquially we just call them beavers. "American" or "Canadian" beaver seems important only when distinguishing them from the European beaver, or speaking more formally or scientifically. Determining which is really the most common formal name is subjective. While there may be more beavers in Canada, there are more humans in the US. *shrug*. -Agyle 09:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finland

[edit]

Aren't American Beaver also native to Finland?

They're an alian species common in Finland and Russia, and are sparsely found in some other European countries. [1], Table 1. --Interiot 16:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common Names

[edit]

Regarding whether the common name of this species is Canadian, American or North American Beaver, [2] implies one species Castor canadensis is called both Canadian and North American, but there are 24 subspecies. [3] has more detailed info and shows the regional distribution across the continent of castor c. Most scientific papers on google seem to imply its North American Beaver and that would be more accurate, sorry as I am to deprive Canada of a national symbol. But I'm not certain, I guess this is why we use scientific rather than common names. Even among flowers and trees the same species can have several common names that are perfectly valid. The Mountain Beaver for instance is neither beaver nor lives in mountains Mhicaoidh 03:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move 2007

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Since the whole article refers to it as the North American Beaver, we should move it to that namespace, no? Any objections? - TheMightyQuill 17:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that an objection, or merely a statement of fact? - TheMightyQuill 08:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not an objection per se, but I'd like to see an authoritative reference cited or other quasi-objective rationale for North American Beaver being a more common than American Beaver. E.g., ITIS lists only "American Beaver" and "Beaver" as common English names. While I think "North American Beaver" and "Canadian Beaver" should also qualify be listed, I can't find any authoritative source that substantiates that, just a lot of google references. The best way I can think of querying Google's opinion on the best common name would be searching for the common names with the scientific name; results:
"American beaver" and "castor canadensis": 28,500 results
"Canadian beaver" and "castor canadensis": 888 results
"North American beaver" and "castor canadensis": 609 results
-Agyle 09:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this an improvement? Is there a South American Beaver? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question is more about what's the most common name, not which is the better name. As Themightyquill noted, the title is American Beaver, but article uses North American Beaver. After review, the preponderance of sources use American Beaver, so I propose changing the article, not its title. I'm prepping an update that also includes subspecies, one of which is called the Canadian Beaver, and will address the naming alternatives. -Agyle 20:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think "American Beaver" is the more common usage outside of Canada. "North American Beaver" is used frequently in Canada. However, I found "American Beaver" on Parks Canada web pages,[4][5] and a university web page.[6] I think this suggests that most Canadians do not object to this term. Consequently, I think "American Beaver" should remain the article title.Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 16:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Just wanted to point this out in case anyone is wondering. An anon IP added this external link, and it was properly (I think) removed:

It contains useful info not found here, but WP:EL says to avoid linking to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." -Agyle 17:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested reversal of undiscussed move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to American Beaver. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Beaver → American Beaver — 1) Page move was previously discussed and rejected; 2) Page was [then moved to a different name than discussed] without visible discussion or consensus (dispite the edit summary in the move); 3) Both sources used list species as "American beaver" [[7]] [[8]]. —Old Hoss (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
So, besides "ILIKEIT", do you also have a legitimate argument? --Old Hoss (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

I propose we rename the article Castor canadensis, and create redirects at North American Beaver, Canadian Beaver, American Beaver etc. Mindmatrix 14:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reasonable compromise, but an unnecessary one. Other than the editor who moved the article and the opposing editor above, who are both Canadians, the consensus was to adhere to the recognized common name, American beaver. --Old Hoss (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well. I am endorsing Mindmatrix proposal to rename the article Castor canadensis. This is a reasonable compromise, and will cut all the POV crap with whole "american", or "canadian" thing. nat.utoronto 16:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how the recognized common name is POV, that seems to be a non-sequitor Wikipedia argument meant for an individual editor's assertions, not applicable to reliable outside sources. POV cannot be applied to scientific journals; unless you are claiming that quoting those sources is POV. Respectfully, in this situation, POV seems to be a cop out argument to avoid the real debate. ;) --Old Hoss (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should move the page to the latin name. That should eliminate the problem. Well, not really, but maybe it will be less of an issue. Kaldari (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. We do not do this for mammals. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Size

[edit]

The article says the American beaver is smaller than the European beaver, but American's average size is 20 kg while the European average is 18 kg, and the American ones can weigh "up to 45 kg" but the largest European wieghed 31.7 kg. I think there's a mistake somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.168.191.176 (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source on the both beaver's size is sound. Please check if those specifically on the American breed here hold water. Mariomassone (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move: American Beaver → Canadian Beaver (July 2009)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move —harej (talk) (cool!) 23:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


American Beaver → Canadian Beaver — The proper scientific name of this animal is 'Castor canadensis', quite literally "Canadian Beaver". A Google search for "Canadian Beaver" yields 68,200 results while "American Beaver" yields only 58,500 or 16.6% less - a significant difference. The Beaver is also a profoundly important national symbol in Canada, where it is just any other animal in the United States, limited primarily to its north. If there is no consensus once again for this move, an alternative name might be "Beaver (Castor canadensis)" which would give you the common name used throughout its natural habitat with the scientific name for disambiguation; however, I believe there is ample reason to make it "Canadian Beaver". - Nbpolitico (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support per above - Nbpolitico (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support sounds good. 76.66.193.20 (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support yep, move it.    M   21:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're supposed to "Determine the most common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject"(WP:UCN). Google is inevitably not very good at this, no matter which version you use, but broadly speaking Google Scholar and Google Books are better than Google Web, because the web is full of pitifully unreliable sources. On both Google Scholar and Google Books, American Beaver defeats Canadian Beaver. In both cases, Castor canadensis beats both. On Google Scholar, Castor canadensis smashes the vernacular alternatives by factors of eight to ten. Even on vanilla Google, Castor canadensis scores 95% of "Canadian Beaver". I draw two conclusions from this
    1. There is no valid reason to justify the proposed move. Oppose.
    2. The most common name for this animal, according to usage in reliable sources, is Castor canadensis. Move to Castor canadensis.
Hesperian 02:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Modest support per proposed move, per proponent; web counts are not what they appear, and this cuts both sides, and I would just as well support moving this article to North American beaver (see below). Hesperian, should we also move Beaver to Castor (genus)? Bosonic dressing (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the above comment has been revised and appended to, well after the original comment had been responded to; but without a fresh timestamp, nor any other indication that the revision took place. This thread is therefore now an inaccurate record of the discussion.[9][10][11][12] Hesperian 03:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a delightful straw man. Perhaps you might try addressing my actual rationale, rather than posting a knee-jerk emotive reaction that completely misses the points I raised. The answer is no, of course not. "Beaver" smashes "Castor" on Google Scholar, even without bothering to filter out spurious hits on the latter e.g. "castor oil". Hesperian 03:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The authority of Google counts (or lack of same) notwithstanding, broad or narrow (subjectively), this is hardly a strawman since numerous reputable publications support the name per the proposed move (e.g., ISSG list, entry for 'North American beaver' in Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia). I'd be more convinced of the utility of moving this article to the Linnaean name if other similar articles were as well, for encyclopedic consistency and given the commonality of the term per the proposed move (using a broader search and in accordance with the common naming convention). Also, this isn't a specialised resource. Of course, the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries (which arguably reflect common English usage) note the 'North American beaver'. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I certainly agree with you that consistency is an important consideration, and that in this case it makes a strong argument against using the scientific name. Setting aside the scientific name proposal, the fact remains that reliable sources appear to favour "American Beaver" over "Canadian Beaver". The argument that the latter term is more common than the former is therefore refuted. The proposal therefore rests on the literal meaning of the scientific name (which is irrelevant), the importance of this animal to Canadians (which is irrelevant), and the distribution of this animal (which is irrelevant). Hesperian 03:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the guidance of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names, "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed. However, debating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." Leave the name alone. However, I would support changing the names of this and the other Castor articles to their scientific names. Hesperian gives the arguments for this alternative. That would be my second choice. Walter Siegmund (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I think someone said it best in one of the last discussions regarding this subject that it should either be Beaver or American Beaver as they are the most common names. BlindEagletalk~contribs 12:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beaver is not a name for this species; it is the name of a broader group of animals that includes this species. One might just as well argue that the most common name for Adal (sheep) is "sheep"; the most common name for pine is "tree"; and the most common name for the Toyota Camry is "car". Hesperian 12:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point of view. However, the common names for those items listed are not used generically to talk about a those specific items unlike the Beaver. BlindEagletalk~contribs 13:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are over 5,000 mammal articles, 90-something percent of which are under their common name. A proposal like this should be taken up with WP:MAM (where it will probably fail). The problem is not the lack of a good common name, it's that it has too many (like groundhog). --Aranae (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many times has the article been moved between "American" and "Canadian"? I suggest we settle the matter by using the scientific name as the page name. That would also clarify that the article is about the species, not about one or several sub-species with their various common names. --Una Smith (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very atypical to have the article be the scientific name. Per my original move request, if there isn't consensus to move to Canadian Beaver, I think that Beaver (Castor canadensis) is the best approach. The animal is known most commonly in both countries as simply "the beaver", not the Canadian Beaver, American Beaver or North American beaver - but as there is another beaver, then the scientific name could be used in parentheses as a disambiguation. - Nbpolitico (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new lead seems to have been accepted. Let's close this proposal as 'no move. Then perhaps someone will open a new proposal to move this article to Castor canadensis, and we can see if that gains more favor. --Una Smith (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Nothing wrong with existing name, and clearly it does occur outside Canada. Common names are very commonly different from the scientific name. We don't try and rename the Eastern Grey Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) the "Carolina Grey Squirrel", or the Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) the "Silver Gull". Also oppose Beaver (Castor canadensis), as this names the animal twice. Castor canadensis on its own would be acceptable. Discussion about which is more widely used is irrelevant, as neither is sufficiently dominant. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion

[edit]

According to WP:UCN, we're supposed to "Determine the most common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Google Scholar and Google Books are usually better at this than Google Web, because the web is full of unreliable sources.

Name Google Web Google Scholar Google Books
American Beaver
("american beaver" -"north american beaver")		 47900 788 810
North American Beaver 7190 441 611
Canadian Beaver 59700 475 716
Castor canadensis 57000 5890 945

Hesperian 02:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


There's something not right with the fact that when one does a search for "Canadian Beaver" they get redirected to "American Beaver". Out of spite I'm tempted to redirect "American Goose" to "Canada Goose" :P I'd like to support this but feel I must recuse myself because of a strong pro-Canadian bias. To be completely neutral perhaps renaming it to "North American Beaver" would be a better option. -- Ϫ 03:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


"the importance of this animal to Canadians (which is irrelevant), and the distribution of this animal (which is irrelevant)." It is not quite that simple, if it where then the Irish would not object so strongly to the use of the term British Isles and also the long long running dispute over the use of Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. We have to take into consideration Wikipedia:Naming conventions#National varieties of English which should also be considered as a counter weight to Walter Siegmund opposition "per the guidance of Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Controversial names"? Just counting hits from reliable sources would probably end up with American football at Football. Because the majority of English language sources originate in the USA, to reflect Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, consideration has to be given national varieties of English. -- PBS (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't the bias be present in the reliable sources? It seems to me that if this animal is of immense importance of Canadians, and a primarily Canadian animal, then a disproportionate number of reliable sources on it will be authored by Canadians, written in Canadian English, and use the Canadian name. If that is the case, then by explicitly taking ENGVAR into account, you're giving nationalism two bites of the cherry. If is isn't the case, then who are we to declare this primarily a Canadian topic? Hesperian 11:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I think this line of rationale is refuted, the beaver can be skinned any number of ways (so to speak). Apropos, I'm questioning the importance of the counts H. assembled above. When doing a search for "American beaver" in Google Scholar, a perusal of the entries on the first few screens reveals 'North American beaver' to be in prominence. Relatedly, I requalify my support somewhat for moving this article to 'Canadian beaver' ONLY because it perhaps is more properly assigned to the subspecies Castor canadensis canadensis. (Moreover, I find the Canada goose (Branta canadensis) comparison apt.) Given other notations above, I would support a move to North American beaver (with other major variants in the introduction) as my second choice, since that seems to be the most equitable of the terms available and is fairly common. As someone else proposed above, I do not see the utility in moving lay article titles to specialised Linnaean equivalents in, this, a lay resource unless absolutely necessary. Bosonic dressing (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The counts given above for American Beaver are the results of the query "american beaver" -"north american beaver". Hesperian 13:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be one explanation why the table Hesperian produced is skewed to "Canadian Beaver" for popular names (compared to books and scholar). If one nation is much larger than another (10 times the size) then the important to the minor nation may be lost in the wash for example a difference between 10% and 15% may not be easily quantifiable, and has to be treated with sensitivity, as the Irish debates show. You will notice that I am not stating an opinion either way because in this case I am disinterested, I am just noting that if the animal is of symbolic importance to Canadians, it is not irrelevant when it comes to naming the page.
For interest I ran the search on several different DNS country endings for comparison. I am not pretending that they are reliable. It is just to illustrate that national naming does vary from country to country and we have an obligation to consider national preferences if there is are strong national ties to a topic:
  • about 2,050 for "Canadian Beaver" site:au
  • about 143 for "American Beaver" site:au
  • about 758 for "Canadian Beaver" site:ca
  • about 998 for "American Beaver" site:ca
  • about 293 for "Canadian Beaver" site:nz
  • about 241 for "American Beaver" site:nz
  • about 814 for "Canadian Beaver" site:uk
  • about 16,500 for "American Beaver" site:uk
So from this rough and ready survey it seems Australians are more culturally biased towards the name "Canadian Beavers" than Canadians :-) --PBS (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to make the point about the relative size of Canada to the U.S. and how that ought to neutralize the argument that if the Beaver was so important to Canada, there would be more references. From Wikipedia's own article on the Economic history of Canada, we find that "the (beaver) fur trade is often considered to be the most important factor in the population of the Canadian interior."
Domain # of Beaver* results
*Castor (French for beaver) used for Quebec
gc.ca
Canadian federal government		 222,000
gov.nl.ca
Newfoundland & Labrador provincial government		 602
gov.ns.ca
Nova Scotia provincial government		 14,200
gov.pe.ca
Prince Edward Island provincial government		 514
gov.nl.ca
Newfoundland & Labrador provincial government		 483
gouv.qc.ca*
Quebec provincial government		 3,770
gov.on.ca
Ontario provincial government		 14,500
gov.mb.ca
Manitoba provincial government		 1,560
gov.sk.ca
Newfoundland & Labrador provincial government		 2,930
gov.ab.ca
Alberta provincial government		 8,850
gov.bc.ca
British Columbia provincial government		 16,100
TOTAL 285,509
To try to measure national importance, if you do a search for beaver site:gc.ca (just the Canadian federal government) you get 222,000 results, a search of beaver site:gov - which would give you U.S. federal and 50 state governments you get only 1,220,000 results. A country with 9.1 times the population, has only 5.5 times the references. When you factor in Canadian provinces to make a more equitable comparison that drops to 4.3 times. To put it another way, Canadian governments reference beavers 8.5 times per 1000 residents, while American governments reference them less than have as often at 4.0 times per 1000 residents.
There is an interesting section on the website of the federal Department of Canadian Heritage explaining the importance of the beaver to Canada, and the beaver's role is so important in the minds of Canadians that there was a whole series of very successful marketing by a beer company focused on the beaver.[13][14][15]
Calling the Castor canadensis the "American Beaver" is akin to calling the Bald Eagle a "Canadian Eagle", something most Americans would likely find offensive, despite the fact that they are more populous in Canada. - Nbpolitico (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As others have pointed out on this talk page, "Canadian beaver" can refer to a subspecies; the article even "Canadian beaver" to mean the subspecies. Also, whether it is referred to as "American", Canadian", or other depends in part on the context in which the term is used: is it a study of beavers in North vs South America? Or in Eurasia vs North America? Or in boreal Europe vs boreal Canada? See? "American beaver" (etc) often is an adjectival construct, not a common name. So... I have revised the article lead to put what seems to be the most information first, and to give all the English-language common names in a neutral fashion. --Una Smith (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great peace-keeping! That solved the problem in my opinion. -- Ϫ 10:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're suffering from an excess of civility. I appreciate how this discussion has come nowhere close to getting out of hand and everyone's been great about that. I propose, though, that some of the most recently proposed solutions, including the current rewording of the article and the use of "Beaver (Castor canadensis)" as an article tile, are essentially solutions to the editor conflict at the expense of the article and reader. There are three perfectly valid common names for Castor canadensis. I personally prefer "American Beaver" because it is used by the most respected third party sources. "North American Beaver" is second in my opinion because it is a more accurate descriptor, but is less commonly used. "Canadian Beaver" is also a perfectly valid common name. This is a well-known animal with multiple vernacular names (like cougar and groundhog) and the best approach is to choose one name based on a relatively objective set of criteria and then make sure the other names are indicated. Trying to call the species just plain "beaver" is more than a little awkward and attributing the various common names to international sources is just plain weird and strikes of OR. Of course someone in North America is going to say that a "beaver dammed up the stream and is flooding the road" and not that an "American Beaver dammed the stream". That doesn't indicate that they don't think Eurasian Beavers are real beavers, there's just no point in the precision. They'll say an otter (not a "North American Otter) is swimming in the stream as well. The public is going to come here looking for information on the beaver found in North America and they will (and should) expect to see an article that refers to it as _____ Beaver, not the one rare article that refers to a well-known mammal by its common name just because the editors couldn't agree on which common name to use. --Aranae (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the page name Beaver (Castor canadensis) seems overly complex: Castor canadensis by itself is simpler and unambiguous. The page name Castor canadensis makes it more graceful to refer to this beaver in the article by its usual common (vernacular) name, "beaver". Apart from "beaver", by far the most common (prevalent) name sensu Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is Castor canadensis. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) gives further guidance: if the only common name would be taken by a higher-ranked group, or if the only common name is needed for another article or a disambiguation page, use the scientific name. --Una Smith (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But "beaver" isn't "the only common name". In fact I think it scarcely qualifies as a common name since I can't envision any scenario where someone would discuss it in an international context, mean C. canadensis, and yet still call it "beaver" without a geographic adjective. The statement you quote above is not even remotely true in this instance. Is the next step for someone to propose that the article be moved to Beaver (North America)? --Aranae (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know how easy it is to confuse the two sense of "common name": commonly used name, and vernacular name. If a commonly used name is available, then to use a vernacular name that is not a commonly used name would violate Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --Una Smith (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A different move request

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. The most common name is "beaver", and the Latin "scientific" name is Castor canadensis. No consensus has been achieved for the latter. Outside wikipedia disambiguation is rarely needed, and when it is and the scientific name is not used, the qualifying elements "American" "Canadian" and "North American" appear to be ad hoc. The continual re-requesting of this move and the comments made make it reasonably transparent that there is no consensus either for the current name and that hostility to the current name on wikipedia is fairly well rooted in patriotic feelings. These feelings are the main reason for disrupting consensus on the current name, "American" referring to the country as well as to the continent. I'm therefore moving the article to "North American Beaver" to remove this ambiguity and allay this, in the expectation that the name North American Beaver (or beaver) will generate fuller consensus and more stability than either "American Beaver" or Castor canadensis. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


American Beaver → Castor canadensis — Since the talk page discussion has noted that this is an option, I have decided to nominate this title pro forma. —harej (talk) (cool!) 23:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I prefer English to Neo-Latin; this is the English Wikipedia. American Beaver is widely understood by lay readers (this is the purpose for which we are supposed, by policy to choose article names), it is unambiguous, and it is correct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make that strongly oppose. Hesperian's argument below, although I disagree with it, is reasonable; I don't think this will have the effect he does. But much of the rest of this is deliberate harm to the goal of communicating with our readers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at the Mammal project's article titles. Some of those vernacular names are all but unknown to anyone; surely their scientific names are to be preferred per WP:UCN? --Una Smith (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has never been my view that commonness is the only priority when it comes to choosing names. If the mammal experts want to use vernacular names for some other reason, such as consistency across article, or because that is the de jure or de facto standard nomenclature of their field, then I guess that's okay with me. Hesperian 04:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support, however, "debating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia", and "[t]he purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles." (Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names). My first choice is to leave the name alone. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – the talk page history documents an extraordinary amount of time and energy spent debating over and over again American Beaver vs Canadian Beaver vs North American Beaver (and beaver lower case). Let's end that and, in the interest of peace and NPOV, move this article to the scientific name. --Una Smith (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support; agree with Hesperian and Walter. Oppose per Araneae. I'm tired of listening to Septentrionalis disrespect guidelines.--Curtis Clark (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, how do I put this? I'm supporting the relevant guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only because it agrees with policy. You said below, "Those would be guidelines; like all guidelines, they can have exceptions," and your opinion about guidelines that in your view contradict policy is well-known. If I understand correctly, Araneae's point is that a decision on this one article that placed it at odds with most other mammal articles should be discussed more widely among editors of mammal articles. I couldn't agree more; substitute Yucca brevifolia for American Beaver and plant for mammal, and we've both seen an exceedingly similar situation.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I commit the dreadful heresy of agreeing with {{guideline}} that guidelines have exceptions, and with WP:POL that If a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, then the policy should in most cases take precedence over the guideline. Take me to the the secular arm and have them deal with me accordingly.
        • On the substance, however, there is a clear distinction: beavers are even better known than Joshua trees, so even those who cling to a Latin name in one case are free to break down and speak English here; in so doing, as Aranae remarks, they will follow the naturalists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my statements in the section above. The only point in moving this article to its scientific name is to avoid conflict among editors. There are three perfectly reasonable common names to choose from (American Beaver, Canadian Beaver, and North American Beaver). This is a very well known rodent and this article is and will be accessed by a wide audience. There are about 1,000 rodent species who are scarcely referred to by their common names, but to have this be the one to move to its scientific name without a change in policy is just silly. This action is being taken to benefit the editors at the expense of the readers. --Aranae (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What policy would that be? --Una Smith (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Naming conventions is policy; this is contrary to its fundamental principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists, from which it concludes article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Even Canadian nationalists will recognize "American Beaver" more easily than Castor canadiensis; we are not an encyclopedia for biologists - they have more reliable sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway, there is no "expense of the readers" here. Anyone searching on one of these vernacular names will go directly to the article, via redirects. Anyone searching on "beaver" will go to Beaver, regardless of any page name of this article. Also, the redirects can be included in any categories. --Una Smith (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course there is. Presenting an English-speaker with an article title she has never seen before for a concept with which she is familiar is an expense, a violation of the Principle of Least Astonishment. Sometimes that is unavoidable, as with Anglo-American divergences, when some English-speakers must be discommoded; but even there it is a cost. If it weren't, we could name all our articles with arbitrary number-strings and avoid all these discussions.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no violation of the Principle of Least Astonishment for an English speaker; the common vernacular name of this animal is "beaver" and typing "beaver" in the search box returns an article titled Beaver and about beavers. Someone who wants a particular species of beaver will be looking for the species name, to be sure they have found the correct article. --Una Smith (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine, it doesn't astonish you to type in a common English word and find yourself looking at Linnaean expressions in boldface. It would me; it plainly does others. I trust Una Smith's efforts to make this encyclopedia less comprehensible will be "noted and logged", to quote an American classic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An ad hominem argument is a quick and easy way to lose a debate. --Una Smith (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually think it's quite likely that someone would know that there are two species of beaver and then come looking for the North American variety and add a very logical adjective. Field guides list this species as "American Beaver", a general biology text might use the common name in context of ecology or other factors. I think there are lots of ways that people can get here. Clicking on the word "beaver" at an article on Oregon State should direct here and not the genus article, for example. I'm not sure what Septentrionalis meant by logged and noted. When I started editing wikipedia I probably would have shared Una's opinion, but my thoughts on the matter have evolved based on what I see the proper use of wikipedia as a resource is and how I'd like articles on interesting topics outside my field such as planets or mythology to be set up. Una has a legitimate opinion I just 1.) disagree and 2.) think "American Beaver" is the wrong place to have a conversation on what is essentially a question that pertains to a huge set of articles. --Aranae (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I was a new editor I had no opinion, other than I couldn't care less what the page name was, provided the lead was sensible. Discussing this proposal, and the one before it, I have changed my opinion somewhat about the proper page name of this article. At first I accepted Hesperian's numbers as reflecting actual use of vernacular names. Now I think those numbers are inflated, and include many instances where "American beaver" is not a vernacular name, the vernacular name being simply beaver and the author qualifying as needed. For example, although there is no New Hampshire Beaver, on Google "New Hampshire beaver" gets about 3,600 hits! Also, I recall my first reaction to the page name American Beaver. "American": was that USA, North America, or the Americas (2 continents). Upper case "Beaver": was "American Beaver" a notable porn movie? Also, I don't like how vernacular names hide whether the article concerns a variety, a species, a genus, etc. -- and sometimes the article itself is a confused mash-up of distinct topics, a problem that I think originates in the use of a vernacular name and contributions by editors who themselves do not know if the topic is a breed, variety, species, or genus, or something else. A notable example is Wild horse. Aranae is not the only "mammal" editor in this discussion (I count myself and Richard New Forest too), so if Curtis Clark and Hesperian want to !vote for mammal editors to decide on vernacular vs scientific, then I suppose abstaining would be best. Finally, to me, some of the views expressed here show concern about the ambiguous page name Beaver. It seems likely that Beaver has a lot of incoming links intending one or the other species, not the genus, but the names of the species pages are irrelevant. The best way to fix that is to put a dab page at Beaver. (Note that I am not proposing to do this.) --Una Smith (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the issue should be restricted to wp:mammal editors, but I do think that the best arguments presented here apply equally to (or in most cases better than) literally thousands of other pages. Those who argue that common names should be capitalized would say that capitalization provides at least the cutoff between species and higher-level taxa. I am 100% neutral on capitalization of common names - I just want people who fight about it to stop doing cut and paste moves when they impose their opinions. At the end of the day I would still find it really strange if when I look up this animal in my field guides and technical references it is under the heading "American beaver" (admittedly both common and scientific names are usually present), but when schoolkids look it up on wikipedia, it's Castor canadensis. --Aranae (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By "policy", I was referring to changing common names to scientific names across mammals or across rodents. That is a discussion that should be taken up at WP:MAM or WP:Rodents. My point is that Castor canadensis is extremely well-known by a broad audience and very frequently referred to by its common names by the general public and even specialists. If rodent articles needed to be moved to their scientific names, this species is about 2,000th in line for that. There are many species which are only rarely referred to by any vernacular name and this is not one of them. I am not advocating that rodent and/or mammal articles be moved to their scientific names - I will oppose it in discussion at the wikiprojects as well. My argument here is that this isn't the place to start randomly changing something that affects thousands of articles. --Aranae (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those would be guidelines; like all guidelines, they can have exceptions, and should reflect what is done on an article by article basis. Nevertheless, the arguments and practice there should have weight; if we use dormouse (as we do), we should call this a beaver; American Beaver if that is (as it appears to be) the most common disambiguation from the European beaver. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is proposing here to move any other page, and in any case exceptions already exist, for fossil mammals. As Hesperian's table shows, in reliable sources the most common disambiguation for this species from the Eurasian one is the name Castor canadensis. --Una Smith (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As Una says, non-technical users will immediately get to Castor canadensis from anything they choose to type in, so there is no hurt to them. The whole point of binomial classification is to give each species one name, and to me it seems perverse to argue about ambiguous or non-universal common names when we have a perfectly good unambiguous scientific one. Why should we be limited by the phobia a few people seem to have for anything that sounds technical? A species is by definition a technical thing, and there is no harm in calling it by its name. Richard New Forest (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we be harmed by the addiction a few editors seem to have to Neo-Latin? One of the things the Latin wikipedia exists for is to provide such an itch with a place to satisfy itself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please be pleasant, both of you. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many apologies if I seemed rude – not at all what I intended (I meant "perverse" in its literal sense, certainly not as in "pervert"!). It's not the Latin as such that is relevant here, but the technical, scientific name – it is not important which language that happens to be in (that's why scientists tend to say "scientific name" not "Latin name"). What is proposed here is merely the use of a technical name to avoid confusion over ambiguous or conflicting common names. Richard New Forest (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nor did I intend to be ruder than what I encountered. There is no ambiguity. Setting aside the sort of nationalist contention which should have been ignored to begin with, there is no conflict. This species is the beaver of North America; it has an English name, well-known to lay readers; and we should use it. This Wikipedia is in English, and is intended for an English-speaking readership; that's why other Wikipedias exist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still some confusion between scientific names and "non-English" ones. Scientific names are used in English and in every other language. They are not in a "foreign language", and have no more more to do with the Latin Wiki than with the English one. There is no difference in this respect between scientific names and other technical names, such as the formal scientific names of chemicals, astronomical objects or minerals. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary. They are used in every modern language; they are native and readily intelligible in none. (It is noteworthy that the exceptions that make it into common use, like brontosaurus, are often incorrect as scientific names.) Even for chemicals, we use the common names, like salt and iron and water, where they exist. Dihydrogen monoxide, however international, is a joke. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per arguments above. Wikipedia is for a general audience and there is no ambiguity with the current title. If it makes the nationalists feel better, think of it as the "American (continent) beaver" vis-à-vis the European beaver. — AjaxSmack 06:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead

[edit]

The lead now is:

The American beaver is the only species of beaver in the Americas, native to North America and introduced to South America. Having the Linnaean name Castor canadensis and known in Canada and the United States by the common name beaver, the species' other common names Canadian beaver (which also refers to the subspecies Castor canadensis canadensis) and North American beaver further serve to distinguish it from the other extant species of beaver, the Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber).

What a mess. For one thing, Castor canadensis is not a "Linnaean name". Also, the page name is "North American Beaver" but the "lead" name arbitrarily is "American Beaver". Finally, the second sentence is almost unparseable. I propose changing it to this:

The North American beaver (Castor canadensis) is the only species of beaver in the Americas, native to North America and introduced to South America. It is known as beaver in the United States and Canada. Other vernacular names (American beaver,[1] Canadian beaver, and North American beaver) serve to distinguish it from the other extant species, Castor fiber, native to Eurasia. (Canadian beaver also refers to the subspecies Castor canadensis canadensis.)

Possibly Canadian beaver should be a disambiguation page; then the awkward parenthetical sentence can be deleted from the lead. What do you think? --Una Smith (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggested lead para looks good, except:
  • How about linking "beaver" from its second occurrence, rather than from within the emboldened headword ("...is a species of beaver"). I think this would make the link easier to see, and we would be linking a word with exactly the same meaning as the link.
  • As "Castor canadensis" is an alternative name, could we put it between commas, rather than in brackets?
  • Not sure the second sentence achieves much – amounts to "it's called just 'beaver' for short"... Do we need it at all? Add "simply beaver" to list in next sentence?
  • Can we do without the brackets? "Other vernacular names include [list], and these serve ..."
  • "Canadian beaver" should not be in bold in the last sentence, but in quotes. This sentence does not need brackets.
Richard New Forest (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is this? --Una Smith (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The North American beaver (species Castor canadensis) is the only beaver in the Americas, native to North America and introduced to South America. In the United States and Canada it is known as beaver; other vernacular names, including American beaver,[2] Canadian beaver, and North American beaver, serve to distinguish it from the other extant species, Castor fiber, native to Eurasia. "Canadian beaver" also refers to the subspecies Castor canadensis canadensis.

I see no reason to say "In the United States and Canada it is known as beaver". Similar sentences could be added to hundreds of articles, but for what? I'm sure anybody from anywhere who doesn't care what species of beaver he is talking about will refer to it as simply a "beaver", and I'll further wager that Americans and Canadians would call a Eurasian beaver simply a "beaver" if they saw one. I also see no reason to mention the name "North American beaver" twice and bolden it the second time. This leaves:

The North American beaver (species Castor canadensis) is the only beaver in the Americas, native to North America and introduced to South America. In the United States and Canada its vernacular names are, respectively, American beaver[3] and Canadian beaver. (The term "Canadian beaver" also refers to the subspecies Castor canadensis canadensis.) There is one other extant species of beaver, Castor fiber, native to Eurasia.

I think it looks cleaner. Srnec (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Richard New Forest (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This beaver is emphatically not known as American beaver in the US and Canadian beaver in Canada. In both countries, it is known simply as beaver. --Una Smith (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In field guides printed in and concerning both countries and in paperwork of government agencies (such as the US National Park Service), the species is often referred to by its common names (American, Canadian, or North American Beaver). In both countries it is frequently known by something more specific than simply "beaver". --Aranae (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A comment: the 'mess' of the current lead was inherited from the prior lead recently changed amidst numerous move requests, with additional changes made to reflect perhaps the misguided belief that the article would remain at 'American beaver'. The proposed lead sounds fine (perhaps with minor tweaks), and I have placed it. Bosonic dressing (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, I do wonder whether the second sentence should be more simply:
Without tying a variant to each country. Given the counts above, 'Canadian beaver' seems to be popular in Australia, for example. ;) Bosonic dressing (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ MSW
  2. ^ MSW
  3. ^ MSW
  4. ^ MSW

What do they eat?

[edit]

The article doesn't say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.37.174 (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article says: "When building in a pond, the beavers first make a pile of sticks and then eat out one or more underwater entrances and two platforms above the water surface inside the pile.". Do they actually eat the sticks or just chew a hole (i.e. does the statement contain a grammatical error)? --twifosp (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what's up with extirpation being misused over and over and over

[edit]

extirpation roughly means 'to the brink of regional or total extinction as a result of being hunted due to undesirability'. these animals were not extirpated. they were just hunted to the point of regional extinction as a result of their desirable fur. there aren't many instances where extirpation would be the right word. maybe in a large city or conserved forest... but not when they were killed BECAUSE of their desirability. i find there is too much (mis)use of this specific word in this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.93.246.16 (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usage examples which confirm the general meaning (i.e. synonymous with locally extinct) are easy to find with Google, but I see no evidence that the cause of extinction does or doesn't matter (nor any other precise definition of the term for that matter). You'll need to find a source that backs you up and use it to correct locally extinct. --Jesdisciple (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I did find this, but it is not targeted to ecology and no other definitions allude to motive. The second definition here looked promising, but it is user-submitted. Usage examples in the more general ecological sense abound here. The ecological community seems to generally understand that the motive behind extinction is irrelevent to the definition, yet no one has documented this de facto standard. --Jesdisciple (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breech vs. breach

[edit]

I don't know where to ADD a new edit request, but there are several locations that the term "breech" is used where "breach" is meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.158.194 (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should add it to the end of the Duscussion. There is usually a tab for a "new section". If not start the addition with a title between double equal signs on a new line (i.e., ==title==). I fixed the spelling error. Don't forget to sign your additions with four tildes (~~~~) Dger (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Engvar

[edit]

There has been some recent back and forth about the spelling of "behaviour". Per WP:ENGVAR, there is a method to decide this. Since beavers occur in both Canada and the United States, "strong national ties to a topic" isn't useful. The second revision of the article, by the article creator, introduced the word "behaviour", so "retaining the existing variety" seems to be the best guide.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Curtis Clark. The Manual of Style is clear on this point and "behaviour" should be retained. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This can be quite an annoying point but the reversion to Canadian English seems appropriate here. It might be a nice feature for Wikipedia to have a tag that indicates the original English variation that is used. It is difficult for editors to have to go back and find out which one (UK/Canada/US etc.) is the default. DGERobertson 18:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed; this should be in Canadian English. There indeed doesn't seem to be a template to indicate that, though we do have {{Use British English}}. Ucucha 18:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that in order to achieve consistency within articles that the Canadian spelling rules must be applied to all words and just not to behaviour. For example, seems like colour might be appropriate as well as perhaps metric units if they are spelled out. I would also suggest inserting an editor’s note in a strategic location within the article explaining this judgment as an aid to future editing. Pinethicket (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made the spelling changes as suggested above. The problem of metric names is eliminated when abbreviations are used. They are the same in all English varities with a few exceptions. DGERobertson (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about removing information

[edit]

I think the statement that appears in the section "Urban Beavers" that states "In Birmingham, Alabama in 2008, approximately 12,000 [81] endangered watercress darters were killed when workers from the city removed a beaver dam at Roebuck Springs, emptying one of only four ponds where the colourful fish is found. The beaver pond was emptied because it often flooded a nearby tennis court. The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources is suing the City of Birmingham for destroying an endangered species and their wetland habitat" should be removed. If not the paragraph, then most certainly the picture. Although well sourced, it does not seem to be a relevant enough event to be mentioned in this article. If it does it should be in a different section, however I think it needs to be removed entirely. Any thoughts? Mikist4 (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Mikist4[reply]

bias toward beavers in the west

[edit]

This is a well researched article but seems to have a bias toward recent studies out west, and a lot of what I've discovered while watching beavers in northern New York for 17 years is missing. That said, a 1988 study of beavers in Alberta is one that describes what I frequently see: dams breeched by otters in the winter and not repaired by beavers until after the spring run-off if then. Perhaps, rather than always spreading the good news about beavers, the article could take a more common sense approach. Beavers are made to appear so remarkably beneficial in this article, I am tempted to point out that beavers are only human. Bob Arnebeck, New York — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnebeck (talk • contribs) 03:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move to "North American beaver"

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Materialscientist (talk) 09:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


North American Beaver → North American beaver – Change to sentence case mammal species common name as specified in WP:MOS. Most non-rodent, non-bat mammal species have been changed, and at some point the rodents will have to be tackled as well. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Subspecies

[edit]

Hi, right now the taxobox lists C. c. pacificus Rhoads 1892 and C. c. leucodontus Gray, 1869 as two distinct subspecies. However, Jenkins & Busher 1979 (ref in article) writes that they're synonyms, as does Hall 1981 [cited in [16]]. Is there a source that claims they *aren't* synonyms? Umimmak (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on North American beaver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on North American beaver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Castor canadiensis - range in Europe?

[edit]

Is the range of the North American beaver shown in the map and article text accurate? I can only find sources for Castor canadiensis in part of Finland, rather than the wide area shown. Rauisuchian (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to water sound recording

[edit]

This article mentions that beavers piled mud and sticks on a tape recording of running water sounds on dry land. I have the cited article (Richard 1983) open in front of me. It makes no mention of this experiment. Is there a real experiment than someone can cite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmccabe (talk • contribs) 22:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I learned that this was work in the 1960s by Wilsson in Sweden and therefore not the North American Species. Wilsson's work is cited by Richards but there's still no mention of the recording in the Richards paper.Dmccabe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be removed? Or maybe reduced to a smaller statement since it is a different species of beaver? Rauisuchian (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"North Ameican Beaver" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect North Ameican Beaver. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 17:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Citations for verification template still needed?

[edit]

The article looks to be quite thoroughly sourced. If there are unsupported statements, mark them with citation needed templates. But as a whole I think the citations for verification flag can be removed. Rauisuchian (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhizome storage

[edit]

In the diet section, the article currently states about water lilies: "The rhizomes are stored in the food cache and remain actively growing." The linked reference says: "Its edible rhizomes remain succulent after cutting and are often stored in a food cache for winter use." I did not read the whole referenced article, but I don't see evidence supporting this claim of continued growth in the cache. Should this sentence be changed/removed, or am I missing something? — Epastore (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_American_beaver&oldid=1206290873"